IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15886 of 2008(N) -------------------------- AS.197/2007 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. LALY VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE ALIAS BALRAJ. THOTTATHIL HOUSE PIRAVORM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, PIRAVOM. 2. VARGHESE P. SUNNY ALIAS BALRAJ, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVORM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, PIRAVOM. 3. BENNY VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE P. SUNNY ALIAS BALRAJ, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SMT.K.V.LEKSHMY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SADANANDAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, MANJAMATTATHIL (KUNNAKKATTIL) PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM P.O. 2. SANTHA, W/O.SADANANDAN, MANJAMATTATHIL (KUNNAKKATTIL) PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM P.O. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15886 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are appellants in A.S.NO.197/2007, on the file of Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Appeal was filed challenging the judgment, whereunder a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was granted in favour of the respondents, in O.S.No.413/2006, on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. In the first appeal, petitioners filed I.A.No.515/2008, an application for staying further proceedings in E.P.No.36/2008, which was initiated by respondents-decree holders alleging violation of decree for injunction. Under Ext.P7 order, learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as per Ext.P7 order, learned Sub Judge refused to stay the execution proceedings for the reason that an order of temporary injunction was prevailing through out when the suit was pending, and the suit was decreed after recording the evidence. It was W.P.(C) No.15886/2008 2 argued that the order of temporary injunction originally granted in the suit was only restraining petitioners from cutting open a new way through the plaint schedule property and altering its present lie, and committing waste, and a way was in existence at that time, and, therefore, the first Appellate court should have stayed the execution proceedings. The question whether a way was in existence in the plaint schedule property, and whether petitioners have a right to use the way are matters to be decided in the first appeal. After evidence, trial court granted a decree in favour of the respondents. Even when the suit was pending before the trial curt, an order of injunction was prevailing. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P7 order. Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose A.S.No.197/2007, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.