IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH APRIL 2011 / 6TH VAISAKHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1554 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No. 2821/11 IN OS.547/2011 of IIIRD ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS :- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANMADHAN NAIR, S/O KOCHU PILLAI, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIRMALA BHAVAN, KARODE MURI, VILAPPIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NIRMALA DEVI @ NIRMALA KUMARI, W/O MANMADHAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIRMALA BHAVAN, KARODE MURI, VILAPPIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER :- -------------------------------------------------------------- PADMAVATHI AMMA @ THANKAMMA, D/O GOURI AMMA, AGED 86 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADMAVILASOM BUNGLOW, KARODE MURI, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 573. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P.(C). No.1554 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of April 2011 J U D G M E N T Respondents in I.A.No.2821 of 2011 in O.S.No.547 of 2011 of the court of learned IIIrd Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P3, order dated 31-03-2011 restraining them from committing waste in the schedule property, cutting and removing trees or for making any construction therein till partition and separate possession is effected through court. Learned counsel submitted that Ext.P3, order is passed without authority since the claim for partition is pending decision in A.S.No.62 of 2003 of this Court and hence any application for injunction ought to have been moved in the said appeal. Learned counsel also challenges the direction issued by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P3, order that the matter may be communicated to the O.P.(C). No.1554 of 2011 -: 2 :- police station concerned. According to the learned counsel, that direction is wholly without jurisdiction. It is pointed out by learned counsel that under Rule 3A of order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) the court is bound to make every endeavour to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days from the date of grant of exparte, interim order of injunction. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the decision in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.Chellappan and others [AIR 2000 SC 3032]. 2. Even as per the said decision, on the expiry of the said period of 30 days from the date of grant of exparte, interim order of injunction, if the application is not disposed of, the order is amenable to an appeal. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appellate forum as provided under law. So far as the grievance of petitioner that non-disposal of the application as early as possible is working out difficulties to the O.P.(C). No.1554 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioners is concerned, having regard to the object of legislature in enacting Rule 3A of Order XXXIX of the Code the learned Munsiff has to dispose of I.A.No.2821 of 2011 as provided under law and, at any rate as early as possible. Resultantly this original petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge Ext.P3, order in appeal as provided under law. Learned IIIrd Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to dispose of I.A.No.2821 of 2011 (in O.S.No.547 of 2011 of that court) as early as possible having regard to the grievance of petitioners, their objection to the matter being communicated to the police and the direction contained in Rule 3A of Order XXXIX of the Code. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt