IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37239 of 2008(G)
1. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDULEKHA, D/O. SANTHA NAIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
For Respondent :SRI.V.SURESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO. 37239 OF 2008
-------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S.No.2/08 on the file of the II Additional
Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner herein.
Respondent is the defendant in the suit. This writ petition is filed
seeking to set aside Ext.P8 interim order of the trial court and
Ext.P9 judgment of the Appellate Court in the appeal filed
challenging Ext.P8 order.
2. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.19/2008 praying for
temporary prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from
demolishing the compound wall and making any construction and
from installing any gate. I.A.Nos.294/2008 and 295/2008 were
filed by the defendant in the suit. I.A.No.294/08 was filed praying
to vacate the order of interim injunction passed in I.A.No.19/08.
I.A.No.295/2008 was filed by the defendant for prohibitory
injunction to restrain the plaintiff in the suit from trespassing into
-2-
WP(C).No.37239/2008
the property of the defendant and from causing any disturbance or
interference to her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property. In the said application the defendants also prayed for
mandatory injunction to restore the status quo ante by dismantling
or removing the newly constructed wall and to close down the new
opening made in the northern boundary of the property of the
defendants. The trial court passed a common order in the above
I.As., which is produced as Ext.P8. By Ext.P8 order the trial court
restrained the plaintiff from trespassing into the property of the
defendant and from interfering with her peaceful possession and
enjoyment and also passed an interim mandatory injunction to
restore the status quo ante by dismantling and removing the newly
constructed wall and to close down the new opening.
3. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order the plaintiff preferred
three appeals. Ext.P9 is the common judgment passed by the
Appellate Court, by which the Appellate Court confirmed the order
passed by the trial court.
-3-
WP(C).No.37239/2008
4. In the writ petition the plaintiff challenged Ext.P8
order and Ext.P9 judgment. This Court stayed the operation of
Ext.P8 and Ext.P9. This Court also passed an interim injunction
restraining the respondent from demolishing the western wall of
plaint B schedule property and form installing any gate therein.
This order was passed on 17/12/2008 and the said order is
continuing till date.
5. When the matter was taken up for consideration, after
hearing the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition
can be disposed of without going into the merits of the contentions
of the parties, in the light of the interim order passed by this Court,
which continues to operation from 17/12/2008 till date. In the
interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the suit itself can be
directed to be disposed of within a time limit. Accordingly, there
will be a direction to the II Additional Sub Court,
Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of the suit within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As an
-4-
WP(C).No.37239/2008
interim measure, the temporary injunction granted by the trial court
restraining the plaintiff from trespassing into the property of the
defendants and from causing any disturbance or interference of her
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, shall continue
till the disposal of the suit. The interim order passed by this Court
staying the operation of Exts.P8 order and Ext.P9 judgment, also
shall continue till the disposal of the suit, subject to the injunction
order referred above.
Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.
-5-
WP(C).No.37239/2008