IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13312 of 2009(O)
1. VINCENT, S/O. LONAPPAN,
... Petitioner
2. CHINNAMMA, W/O. VINCENT, CHAKKARAMAKKAL
Vs
1. DAISY, W/O. LAZER, VALLACHIRAKARAN HOUSE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :30/09/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the
records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or an
appropriate order or direction directing the First
Additional District Judge, Thrissur to hear and dispose
of C.M.A.No.167/2008 and 168/2008 within a time
frame fixed by this Honourable Court and the
operation and implementation of Ext.P8 may be kept
in abeyance till the disposal of the C.M.A.”
2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.375 of 2008
on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for
injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. In the suit, the
plaintiffs applied for identical relief of interim injunction as sought
for in the suit, till its disposal. Later, another application was
also moved for interim mandatory injunction seeking removal of
the alleged obstruction caused to the pathway over which the
plaintiffs claimed right and sought for the decree of injunction as
W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 – O
2
against the defendants. Both the applications were heard
together and the learned Munsiff dismissed those applications
vide Ext.P5 order. Correctness of Ext.P5 order was challenged by
the plaintiffs moving two appeals, numbered as C.M.A.166 of
2008 and 167 of 2008. Both of them are pending before the First
Additional District Court, Thrissur. In C.M.A.No.167 of 2008 the
plaintiffs moved an interlocutory application seeking an interim
mandatory injunction alleging that the defendant caused
obstruction to the pathway. That application, after hearing both
sides, was allowed to some extent directing the defendants to
remove the obstruction made by granite stones blocking the
pathway so as to enable the petitioners to use that way for
access to their property. In default of such removal by the
defendants the plaintiffs were also permitted to remove such
obstruction and use the way. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P8
order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides.
W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 – O
3
4. Having regard to the submissions made and taking
note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to
Ext.P8 order challenged in the writ petition and also other
exhibits tendered, I find an early hearing of C.M.Appeals by the
appellate court to give a quietus to the controversy is the need of
the hour. The trial court, after hearing both sides had disallowed
the application for interim injunction and also the mandatory
injunction sought for by the plaintiffs. The appeals are preferred
against the dismissal of applications. The grievance canvassed
by the petitioners/defendants in respect of ext.P8 order may be
having some merits as the trial court had found under the
common order challenged in the appeals that the plaintiffs are
not entitled to the discretionary relief sought for. The legality,
propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order need not be examined
by this Court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction and the ends
of justice, it appears, would suffice if a direction is given to the
court below for early disposal of the two appeals. I make it clear
that none of the observations made by me in the judgment shall
have any bearing or reflection in the disposal of the appeals on
W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 – O
4
its merits. I direct the learned District Judge to hear and dispose
the two appeals, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition disposed with the above direction.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-