IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14110 of 2008(D) -------------------------- CMA.37/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ THOMAS, S/O.CHERUVATHUR OUSEP, MANKARA DESOM, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, TALAPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. FRANCIS, S/O.CHERUVATHUR OUSEP, MANKARA DESOM, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, TALAPILLY TALUK. 2. VARGHESE, S/O.CHERUVATHUR OUSEP, DO. 3. JOHNY, S/O.CHERUVATHUR OUSEP, DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14110 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 order passed in C.M.A.Nos.23/2006, on the file of the Additional District Court, Thrissur. That C.M.A. was heard along with C.M.A.No.37/2006, which was against the order in I.A.No.1885/2005, an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, to restrain respondents from causing obstruction to taking vehicles through the way having a width of 10 feet. C.M.A. under challenge was filed against the interim mandatory injunction granted in I.A.No.2069/2005 under Ext.P1 order by the learned Munsiff, Vadakancherry. As per the order, learned Munsiff directed respondents to remove the newly erected structure in plaint 'B' schedule pathway. Under Ext.P2 order, though the learned District Judge confirmed the order passed in I.A.No.1885/2005, set aside the order for interim mandatory injunction and directed trial court to dispose of the suit, within three months from 6.2.2008. W.P.(C) No.14110/2008 2 2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P2 order passed in C.M.A.No.23/2006. The question whether petitioner has a right of way through the entire width of 10 feet is a matter to be decided in the suit. In such circumstances, learned District Judge rightly directed the trial court to dispose the suit expeditiously. Petition dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.