IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35891 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.37/2009 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.229/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHACKO, AGED 60, KAITHAKULATHU VEEDU, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.N.AJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CHACKO,AGED 84, KAITHAKULATHU VEEDU, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.35891 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.229 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur. The above suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff is none other than the father of the petitioner/defendant. With the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction to restrain the petitioner/defendant from trespassing upon the plaint property. An ex parte order of injunction was granted by the learned Munsiff. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff moved an application for interim mandatory injunction alleging that the petitioner/defendant had trespassed upon the property and put up a shed. The interim mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiff, after hearing both sides, was allowed by the learned Munsiff, vide Ext.P6 order. Petitioner has challenged Ext.P6 order by filing Ext.P7 appeal WPC.35891/09 2 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. In the appeal, he has also moved Ext.P8 application for staying the operation of the order of interim mandatory injunction passed by the learned Munsiff. Pending consideration of his Ext.P8 application, grievance espoused by the petitioner is that hasty steps are being taken by the respondent/plaintiff to execute Ext.P6 order of interim mandatory injunction. He has therefore approached this Court filing the writ petition to direct the learned Sub Judge, Kottarakkara to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 application expeditiously, and till then, to keep in abeyance the operation of Ext.P6 order. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made with reference to the exhibits produced in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has ordered for executing Ext.P6 interim mandatory order by evicting the petitioner from the shed under his occupation on 14.12.2009. Before his Ext.P8 application is considered by the WPC.35891/09 3 learned Sub Judge in appeal, if the order is executed, the appeal itself will become infructuous, is the submission of the counsel. It is reported that the respondent/plaintiff already entered appearance in the appeal before the Sub Court. Considering the facts and circumstances presented, I direct the learned Sub Judge to hear and dispose Ext.P8 application as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The learned Munsiff, Punalur is directed to keep in abeyance Ext.P6 order for a period of one month from the date of this judgment. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy of the judgment to the Munsiff Court, Punalur and Sub Court, Kottarakkara forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.35891/09 4