IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8120 of 2010(O) ---------------------------------- CMA.57/2008 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.249/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR (IA 1397/08) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANNAMMA RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN, VARIKKOLLIL VEEDU, H.S.JUNCTION, VALACODE VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN MR.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SHAJEENA SHIBU, W/O.SHIBU M.MUSTHAFA, SHAJI MANZIL, H.S.JUNCTION, VALACODE VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 8120 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, Ext.P2 order passed by the appellate court in C.M.A. 57 of 2008 is under challenge. 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. 249 of 2008 of Munsiff's Court, Punalur. The dispute is regarding a way, which was shown as plaint C schedule property and it is said to pass through the property of the petitioner, which was shown as plaint B schedule. An interlocutory application was filed by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction. The respondent resisted the petition. The respondent denied the existence of the way as claimed by the plaintiff. For the purpose of the interlocutory application Exts.A1 to A4, Exts.B1 and B2 and Exts.C1 and C2 were marked. The court below, after considering the materials before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to WPC. 8120.10. 2 any relief in the interlocutory application and accordingly dismissed the same. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal as C.M.A. 57 of 2008. The impugned order has been passed by the appellate court. 3. On going through the orders, it is seen that the court below has ordered the petitioner herein to maintain status quo as mentioned in Exts.C1 and C2. The petitioner cannot have much grievance in that regard. 4. Whatever that be, the petitioner says that there may be a direction to Munsiff's Court, Punalur to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible so that a quietus can be given to the dispute. 5. The prayer seems to be a reasonable one. In the result, there will be a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Punalur to take up O.S.249 of 2008 and dispose it off at the earliest, provided all the steps are complete, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The court below shall dispose of the suit untramelled by the observations contained in the order WPC. 8120.10. 3 impugned. Till then, status quo as available in Exts.C1 and C2 shall be maintained. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.