IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19315 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- CMA.16/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA .................... WRIT PETITIONER/IST APPELLANT -------------------------------------------------- SARASAMMA,KALATHILKIZHAKKETHILAYA MAPPILA VADAKKETHIL,THEKKUM MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) MR.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. ALEYAMMA,PANAVELIL HOUSE,THEKKUM MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE. 2. GEEVARGHESE, PANAVELIL HOUSE,THEKKUM MURI THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT POST BOX NO.1333, Q.N.C.C.ELECTRIC WORKSHOP, DOHA, QATAR. 3. RAJI,PANAVELIL HOUSE,THEKKUM MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19315 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S 348/2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara. Suit is one for declaration of right of easement over a pathway allegedly running through the property of the defendant. With the suit plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction to restrain the defendant from making any obstruction to the enjoyment of the pathway. That application after hearing both sides was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Against that order petitioner preferred an appeal and that appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-taking of steps against one of the respondents. The dismissal of the appeal is W.P.(C).No.19315 OF 2009 2 challenged in this writ petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and also the material tendered with the petition with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel I find this is not a fit case where the visitorial jurisdiction of this court is called for to examine the propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate court. However I notice that in the order passed by the learned Munsiff, some findings have been made while disposing of the interlocutory application for injunction, which may cause prejudice to the plaintiff in the decision to be formed after trial of the suit. While disposing of the interlocutory application for injunction, W.P.(C).No.19315 OF 2009 3 the court is expected to give only tentative opinion and not any conclusive view which is likely to cause prejudice to one or other party. The learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit untramelled by any of the observations made in the order disposing the injunction. The dismissal of the appeal preferred against the order, on the ground of default, shall also not to have any bearing or reflection in the disposal of the suit on merits, which has to be done after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv