IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 37 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1161/2010 IN AS.89/2010 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI PETITIONER: MANKADA SAIDALAVI, S/O.KUTTU HAJI THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: 1. MANKADA HUSSAIN,S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 675 051. 2. JAMSHEELA, D/O.KOPPILAN MOHAMMED, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 675 051. 3. MANKADA MOOSA, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 675 051. 4. AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 675 051. 5. MANKADA MAMMUDU,S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 675 051. 6. MANKADA MAMMUDU,S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 675 051. 7. PATHUMMU, D/O. MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 675 051. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 37 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner filed O.S.No.47 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Tirur against the respondents. Some of the respondents filed O.S.No.1 of 2010, Sub Court, Tirur, which was originally filed before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi. O.S.No.2 of 2010 was filed by one Koonari Marakkar against the respondents. All the aforesaid three suits were tried together by the Sub Court and the suits were disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010. The Sub Court dismissed O.S.Nos.47 of 2009 and 2 of 2010 and decreed O.S.No.1 of 2010. 2. Against the dismissal of O.S.No.47 of 2009, the petitioner filed A.S.No.89 of 2010 before the District Court, Manjeri. In that appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1161 of 2010 for temporary injunction. Against the decree in O.S.No.1 of 2010, the petitioner filed A.S.No.87 of 2010 before the District Court, Manjeri. In that appeal, he filed I.A.No.1160 of 2010 for stay. O.P.(C) NO.37 OF 2011 O :: 2 :: 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though interlocutory applications were filed in the appeals referred to above, the District Court did not dispose of those applications after hearing the parties. The reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition are the following: “a) Issue a direction to the District Judge Manjeri to hear and depose Ext.P7 and P9 interlocutory applications within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. b) Issue a direction to maintain status quo of the disputed pathway by both parties till disposal of Ext.P6 and P8 appeals pending before the District Court, Manjeri. c) Issue a direction staying the operation of Ext.P5 judgment till disposal of Exts.P6 and P8 appeals pending before the District Court, Manjeri. and d) Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. In the manner in which I O.P.(C) NO.37 OF 2011 O :: 3 :: propose to dispose of the Original Petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to the other respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows: The learned District Judge, Manjeri shall hear and dispose of I.A.No.1161 of 2010 in A.S.No.89 of 2010 and I.A.No.1160 of 2010 in A.S.No.87 of 2010, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is not proper to consider at this stage the question whether status quo should be directed to be maintained till the matter is considered by the District Court. That prayer has to be considered by the learned District Judge. Likewise, the question whether stay should be granted in respect of the decree in O.S.No.1 of 2010 is also a matter to be considered by the learned District Judge after hearing all the affected parties. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/