IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2010 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13292 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.518/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RAMACHANDRA SHENOY, PUTHENKADU MADOM, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT: --------------- KRISHNA SHENOY, PUTHENKADU MADOM, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O., CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.D.VINOD SRI.JOBY CYRIAC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13292 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.518 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala. That is a suit for injunction, prohibitory and mandatory and other reliefs. According to the petitioner, he had filed I.A.No.4653 of 2009 for an order of temporary injunction against the respondent causing obstruction to the fishing operation in plaint A schedule property and property of other owners of land of Naduvila Puthenkadu Padasekharam using the sluices and the thodu till disposal of the suit and to pass such other and further orders as are deemed just and proper in the circumstance. It is the case of petitioners that on 31-03-2010, there was an order of status quo passed on I.A.No.4653 of 2009 to be operative till 08-04-2010 but, that order was not extended further though the application was heard and posted to 25-05- 2010. In the meantime respondent is attempting to carry out the acts sought to be prevented vide I.A.No.4653 of 2009 and hence the writ petition seeking reliefs including that respondent be restrained from dewatering the padasekharam. Petition is opposed W.P.(C).No.13292 of 2010 : 2 : by the respondent. Learned counsel states that for the same relief, petitioner had filed I.A.No.2375 of 2008 but, no order was passed thereon since respondent filed a caveat. It is later that petitioner filed I.A.No.4653 of 2009 which was posted on 31-03-2009. In the meantime, counsel for respondent had represented that he will be out of station from 31-03-2010 till 09-04-2010 but, in the absence of counsel for respondent petitioners insisted for an order on I.A.No.4653 of 2009 and learned Munsiff without hearing counsel for respondent and without perusing relevant records produced by the respondent passed an order for status quo at that time of roll call. When the matter came up for hearing on 08-04-2010 extension of the interim order was opposed by respondent and learned Munsiff did not extent the order. The application was heard and posted for hearing on 25-05-2010. It is also the contention of learned counsel that going by the report of Advocate Commissioner, the entire padasekharam is filled with water and for effecting cultivation it is necessary to dewater the same for which the only means is to use the pump and motor set up in plaint D schedule which is the property of respondent. It is submitted by learned counsel that statutory authorities have issued direction to the respondent to dewater the padasekharam for effecting cultivation. Relevant records are also produced. 3. The proper remedy of petitioner was to move W.P.(C).No.13292 of 2010 : 3 : appropriate application before the vacation court (district court) concerned and seek orders on I.A.No.4653 of 2009. Now, there is serious dispute whether it was after hearing both sides that learned Munsiff refused to extent the interim order passed on 31-03-2010 beyond 08-04-2010 or, it was a case of inadvertence on the part of the learned Munsiff in not passing any order. It is not proper for me to enter into that controversy in this proceeding. 4. Learned counsel for respondent undertakes that respondent will not do any act complained in I.A.No.4653 of 2009 till 11-05-2010. That undertaking is recorded. I make it clear that if petitioner wants any order on I.A.No.4653 of 2009 before it is finally disposed of or on any other application petitioner has to approach the vacation court (district court) concerned if such order is requested for before the re-opening of the civil court's or, if it is after re-opening, the trial court itself. With the above direction, the writ petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-