IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31897 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.461/2009 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MYTHEENKANNU,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.PEERU MOHAMMED,PUTHENVEEDU,MONALI, BALARAMAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MOHAMMED PATHUMMAL, D/O.BEEPATHUMMAL,AGED 62 YEARS, PUTHENVEEDU,MONALI,BALARAMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ SRI.SINDHU MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- V.GIREESHAN,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAHASS PANICKER,EASWARAVILASOM BUNGLOW, THIPPIL,BALARAMPURAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31897 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to direct the 2nd Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara to dispose the application for temporary injunction I.A.No.2898 of 2009 in O.S.No.461 of 2009 based on Exts.P5 and P6 commission reports without insisting for any further report of the commissioner. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.461 of 2009 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff has claimed a right of way through the property of the defendants and that way has been described in the plaint as 'A' schedule. Property WPC.31897/09 2 of the plaintiff is shown as 'A' schedule and that of the defendant as 'B' schedule. On the application for an interim injunction moved by the plaintiff, an ex parte order of injunction was granted by the learned Munsiff, to which petitioners/defendants have filed objections. An Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court had already filed a report, but, it is stated to be without notice to the petitioners/defendants. On appearance, filing objections to that report, petitioners/defendants applied for deputing the Advocate Commission again contending that respondent/plaintiff has an alternate way and also disputing the existence of 'C' schedule way. The commission, after visiting the property again, filed a second report. The court below thereupon remitted the report seeking further clarification from the Advocate commissioner. At that stage, the present writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the order passed by the court to remit the report directing the commission to file a fresh report. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. it is submitted during the pendency of the writ petition, the WPC.31897/09 3 commission, after conducting local inspection again, has filed a fresh report as well. The learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submissions only to seek the issue of order/direction to the court below to dispose expeditiously the interlocutory application for injunction moved by the respondent/plaintiff in which an ex parte order of injunction had already been granted by the court. I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose the application for injunction I.A.No.2898 of 2009 in the above suit, after hearing the counsel on both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Writ the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioners on usual terms and send a copy of the judgment to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp