IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1192 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- ( IN IA.3114/2010 IN AS.68/2007 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM ) .................... PETITIONER -------------------- SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN GUPTHAN, KALLIKULAM HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SANTHAKUMARI, W/O.KOCHUNNI EZHUTHASSAN, KILIYINKAL HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-678 633. 2. LAL @ SHAMLAL, S/O.KOCHUNNI EZHUTHASSAN, KILIYINKAL HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-678 633. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- OP(C) No.1192 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March 2011 Judgment This is a typical instance of status quo order, giving rise to confusion and further complications. 2. In this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails Ext.P7 order. He instituted OS No.221/06 before the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam which was one for injunction both mandatory as well as prohibitory. The subject matter of the suit related to a pathway, which the plaintiff claimed, had a width of 12 feet. Suffice to say that after trial, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal as AS No.68/07 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. It is stated that in the IA filed by the petitioner for injunction, the lower appellate court ordered a status quo order. 3. On the allegation that the respondents in the appeal had violated the status quo order, the petitioner herein filed IA No.3114/10 for taking appropriate action against the respondents in the petition. The petitioner has also taken out a commission to show that there has been violation of the status quo order. The lower appellate court after perusing the commissioner's report and taking OP(C) 1192/11 2 note of the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that the status quo order has been violated and accordingly dismissed the petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order passed by the lower appellate court on the ground that the commissioner's report has not been properly considered and that has resulted in an erroneous order. 5. There is nothing to show as to what exactly was the state of affairs as on the date of order of status quo. Though the petitioner claimed that the pathway had a width of 12 feet, the lower appellate court noticed that the trial court, in its judgment, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff in the suit has failed to establish that there was a pathway having a width of 12 feet. The lower appellate court has also noticed that there is nothing to show that any violation of the status quo order has been committed by the respondents. Of course, it has been noticed by the lower appellate court that in the place of fence, a compound wall has been put up. There is nothing to show that that has affected the subject matter of the suit so as to cause any injury to the petitioner. It was under these circumstances that the court below had dismissed the petition. No grounds are made out to interfere with the finding of the court below as it does not suffer from any legal infirmities. However, there will be OP(C) 1192/11 3 a direction to the Sub Court, Ottappalam to take up AS No.68/07 immediately after vacation and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of re-opening of the court after vacation. The OP is disposed of as above. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta OP(C) 1192/11 4