IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 FAO.No. 75 of 2008() -------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2008 IN I.A.NO.75/2008 IN A.S.NO.3/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PAYYANNOOR) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------- KUZHIPPALLIL JOHN, AGED 80 YEARS, PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, DESOM, PAISAKARI P.O., THALIPPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ----------------- 1. SAJEEVAN, THALACHIRA, S/O. THANKAPPAN, PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM PAISAKARI P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST. 2. SANJEEV RAJAN, S/O. RAJAPPAN, PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, DESOM, PAISAKARI P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANNUR) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- F.A.O.No.75 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard. Admitted. Advocate Sri.C.Muraleedharan (Payyannur) appears for the sole respondent. The appeal itself is heard and disposed of. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.318/2005, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba, is the appellant. He filed the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The trial court dismissed the suit, as per the judgment dated 31.10.2007. In the appeal, the appellant before the Sub Court, Payyannur, as A.S.No.3 of 2008. He also filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code for a temporary injunction against trespass. The lower appellate court dismissed that petition. This appeal is filed challenging that order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the respondents had also filed a suit as O.S.No.470/2004 before the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba, for fixation of boundary of the property of the respondent from that of the F.A.O.No.75/2008 2 appellant, and that suit is pending. Though the respondents filed a petition for joint trial, the suit filed by the appellant was disposed of on an earlier date, on account of the direction issued by this Court. 4. Before the trial court also, the appellant/plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction against trespass. That application was not allowed. There was only an order of injunction against waste. The C.M.Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the proper course open to the me, is to direct the lower appellate court to hear and dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible. In the mean while, the respondents shall not commit any active waste in the suit property. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the lower appellate court to dispose of the appeal suit itself, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.