M.V.Krishnan vs Ousepunni on 25 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22472 of 2008(A)


1. M.V.KRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. OUSEPUNNI, 37 YEARS, S/O MUDUTH
                       ...       Respondent

2. MINI,28 YEARS, D/O OUSEPUNNI,

3. SAIMON BABU, 33 YEARS, S/O VADAKKOOT

4. KANI 25 YEARS, W/O CHIRIYANKANDATH BABU,

5. BABU, 30 YEARS, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :25/07/2008

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
           W.P.(C) NO.22472     OF 2008
            ===========================

       Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008

                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.473/2005 on

the file of Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Respondents

are the defendants. Suit is for a prohibitory

injunction restraining respondents from interfering

with the right of way claimed over plaint B

schedule property. I.A.1696/2005 was filed for an

order of temporary mandatory injunction under Order

XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure. Under Ext.P2

order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application.

Petitioner challenged the order before District

Court, Thrissur in C.M.A.27/2006. Learned District

Judge on reappreciation of the materials, under

Ext.P3 order confirmed the order and dismissed the

appeal. This petition is filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3

order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner

W.P.(C)22472/2008 2

was heard.

3. The argument of the learned counsel is that

courts below did not properly appreciate the

materials and based on Ext.C1 report court should

have granted an order of interim mandatory

injunction as sought for.

4. On hearing the counsel and on going through

Exts.P2 and P3 orders, I do not find any illegality

or irregularity warranting interference. The

question whether petitioner is entitled to right of

way over plaint B schedule property is to be

decided on the evidence to be recorded in the suit.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted steps in

the suit are already over. In such circumstance,

the Writ Petition is disposed of directing learned

Munsiff to dispose the suit as expeditiously as

possible, untrammelled by any observations in

Exts.P2 and P3 orders or this judgment.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006