IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3360 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.406/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKARA ................. PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF : ---------------------------------------- PONNAMMA, AGED 69 YEARS, D/O.KUNJUKUTTY, KUNNATHUVEEDU, CHENKULAM P.O., KURISUMOOD, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 : -------------------------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O.SAHADEVAN, SHYAM NIVAS, CHENKULAM P.O., KURISUMOOD, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691510. 2. SASIKALA, W/O.SATHEESHKUMAR, SHYAM NIVAS, CHENKULAM P.O., KURISUMOOD, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691510. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(C).No. 3360 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3/8/2010 IN IA. NO. 2099/2010 IN OS. NO. 406/2010. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 19/1/2011 IN WP(C). NO. 31076/2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 31/8/2011. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 12/3/2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/8/2011 IN IA.3306/2011 IN OS.406/2010 MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3360 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.406 of 2010 of the learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara is a widow aged about 69 years and prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents from trespassing into the suit property where her residential building is situated and committing waste therein. Learned Munsiff has granted an interim order of injunction in favour of petitioner (Ext.P1 is the copy of the order). According to the petitioner, that order was violated by the respondents and thereon she filed I.A.No.3693 of 2010 for prosecution under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since respondents were (allegedly) engaged in violation of the order, petitioner had to approach this Court and obtain police protection, it is stated as revealed by Ext.P2, judgment. In the above circumstances, petitioner wanted I.A.No.3693 of 2010 to be advanced and filed application to that effect but, that application was dismissed by Ext.P5, order stating that there is no sufficient reason to advance the case and that on all dates there are heavy posting of cases. O.P(C).No.3360 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Learned counsel submitted that the fact of mischief committed by the respondents is discernible from the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Learned counsel has read to me the report of the Advocate Commissioner where there is reference to the window glass panes being smashed. 3. I must bear in mind that petitioner is a widow aged about 69years and had to obtain an order for police protection from this Court as revealed from Ext.P2, judgment. Learned Munsiff has observed that there are heavy posting of cases every day. Obviously, learned Munsiff has to give priority for older cases and targeted cases. At the same time grievance of petitioner has also to be looked into and for which, learned Munsiff has to find some time. 4. In Ext.P5, order learned Munsiff has observed that petitioner has not stated sufficient reason to advance hearing of the case. I have been given a copy of I.A.No.3306 of 2011 by which petitioner sought advancement of the case. Learned Munsiff is correct in the above said observation as the affidavit in support of that application does not contain sufficient materials on which learned Munsiff could have decided to advance hearing of the application. In the circumstance Ext.P5, order need not O.P(C).No.3360 of 2011 -: 3 :- stand in the way of petitioner filing a fresh application for advancing hearing of I.A.No.3693 of 2010 stating sufficient reasons. Resultantly this original petition is disposed of as follows: (i) Notwithstanding Ext.P5, order petitioner is permitted to move fresh application for advancing hearing of I.A.No.3693 of 2010 (in O.S.No.406 of 2010 of the learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara) stating reasons for advancing the said application. (ii) If any such application is preferred learned Munsiff shall consider all relevant aspects including the situation in which petitioner is (allegedly) placed and pass appropriate orders on such application as early as possible. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-