IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 772 of 2007() --------------------- CMA.32/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKARA (IA.NO.738/2006 IN OS.29/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/COUNTER CLAIM PLAINTIFFS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHARGAVI AMMA, D/O.KUNJIKUTTIYAMMA, CHEKKOT VEETIL, THEKKEKKARA KIZHAKKUM MURI, PALLIPPAD. 2. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, CHEKKOT VEETTIL, THEKKEKKARA KIZHAKKUM MURI, PALLIPPAD. 3. PADMAKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, CHEKKOT VEETTIL, THEKKEKARA KIZHAKKUM MURI, PALLIPPAD. 4. GOPALAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SREEVILASATHU VEETTIL, THEKKEKKARA KIZHAKKUM MURI, PALLIPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/COUNTER CLAIM DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, CHEKKOT VEETTIL, THEKKEKARA KIZHAKKUM MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.772 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Harippad. The suit was filed by the respondent for fixation of boundary and injunction. The defendants filed written statement and also raised a counter claim for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to cut and remove the trees and overhanging branches of some trees protruding into the counter claim property. The defendants filed I.A.No.738 of 2006 for an interim mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to cut and remove the overhanging branches of the trees over the house and cowshed. The trial court allowed that application as per the order dated 6th July, 2006. The plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Court, Mavelikara challenging the order C.R.P. No.772/2007 2 of the trial court. The appellate court reversed the order of the trial court in I.A.No.738 of 2006 and dismissed the application. The appellate court directed that the suit to be disposed of expeditiously. The defendants challenge the judgment in C.M.A.No.32 of 2006 in this Revision. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the defendants had cut and removed the overhanging branches of some trees and therefore, there is no necessity to prosecute the C.R.P. The counsel also submitted that the plaintiff has filed application before the trial court to take action against the defendants for having violated the order of injunction. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision has not become infructuous and that the matter is still alive. The allegation that the defendants violated the order of injunction is denied. 3. After having heard the counsel on either side, I do not think it is necessary to consider the application for interim C.R.P. No.772/2007 3 mandatory injunction on the merits at this stage. Five years elapsed from the date on which the application was filed. Therefore, the application has become irrelevant. The appellate court has directed the trial court to dispose of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the suit as early as possible untramelled by the observations contained in the order and judgment. The order in I.A.No.738 of 2006 and the judgment in C.M.A.No.32 of 2006 are set aside and I.A.No.738 of 2006 is closed as irrelevant at this distance of time. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl