IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 961 of 2010(O)
1. BIJU, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NICKSON, S/O.CHONEDATH XAVIER,
... Respondent
2. PAULOSE, CHONNEKKAT,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :02/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
OP(C).No.961 of 2010-O.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiff in OS.No.662/2010 of the Court of Learned
Addl.Munsiff, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner before me
seeking a direction to issue an authenticated copy of
judgment dated 27.11.2010 in CMA.No.22/1010 of that
Court and, in the meantime to stay operation of the
judgment in CMA.No.22/2010. According to the petitioner,
building referred to in the suit property originally belonged
to the mother of respondent No.1 and by successive
assignment it came into the ownership of petitioner No.1.
Respondent No.1 was permitted to reside in that building.
Apprehension of petitioner is that claiming some right from
the mother of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is
attempting to take possession of that building in violation of
rental arrangement between petitioner and respondent
OP(C).No.961/2010-O.
2
No.1. He, therefore, sought for a prohibitory injunction in
that line. The Learned Munsiff passed an order of
temporary injunction. On appeal, Learned Sub Judge
reversed the finding of trial court, allowed the appeal and
dismissed the application injunction. Petitioner says that he
has applied for an authenticated copy of judgment in
CMA.No.22/2010, it is not so far issued to him and in the
meantime respondent No.2 is attempting to take possession
and respondent No.1 is about to handover possession of the
building to respondent No.2. Learned counsel submits that
throughout in the trial court there was an order of
injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from
giving/taking possession of the building and that position
continued even when the CM.Appeal was pending. Learned
counsel submits that the petitioner is still in possession of
the building in question.
2. Having regard to the submissions made by
learned counsel, I am inclined to issue the following
directions:
OP(C).No.961/2010-O.
3
(i) Learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is directed
to issue an authenticated copy of judgment
dated 27.11.2010 in CMA.No.22/2010, as
early as possible and at any rate, within two
weeks from the date on which a copy of this
judgment is received in that Court.
(ii) Respondent No.1 is directed not to handover
possession and, respondent No.2 is directed
not to take possession of the building in the
suit property till the expiry of seven days
from the date notified for issue of
authenticated copy of judgment in
CMA.No.22/2010 to the petitioner.
This petition is disposed of as above.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH,
(Judge)
Kvs/-