IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 37 of 2011(O)
1. MANKADA SAIDALAVI, S/O.KUTTY HAJI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANKADA HUSSAIN,S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI,
... Respondent
2. JAMSHEELA, D/O.KOPPILAN MOHAMMED,
3. MANKADA MOOSA, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI,
4. AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI,
5. MANKADA MAMMUDU,S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI,
6. MANKADA MAMMUDU,S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI,
7. PATHUMMU, D/O. MOHAMMED HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/01/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C). NO. 37 OF 2011 O
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
The petitioner filed O.S.No.47 of 2009 before the Sub Court,
Tirur against the respondents. Some of the respondents filed
O.S.No.1 of 2010, Sub Court, Tirur, which was originally filed before
the Munsiff’s Court, Parappanangadi. O.S.No.2 of 2010 was filed by
one Koonari Marakkar against the respondents. All the aforesaid
three suits were tried together by the Sub Court and the suits were
disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010. The Sub
Court dismissed O.S.Nos.47 of 2009 and 2 of 2010 and decreed
O.S.No.1 of 2010.
2. Against the dismissal of O.S.No.47 of 2009, the petitioner
filed A.S.No.89 of 2010 before the District Court, Manjeri. In that
appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1161 of 2010 for temporary
injunction. Against the decree in O.S.No.1 of 2010, the petitioner
filed A.S.No.87 of 2010 before the District Court, Manjeri. In that
appeal, he filed I.A.No.1160 of 2010 for stay.
O.P.(C) NO.37 OF 2011 O
:: 2 ::
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though interlocutory
applications were filed in the appeals referred to above, the District
Court did not dispose of those applications after hearing the parties.
The reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition are the following:
“a) Issue a direction to the District Judge Manjeri to
hear and depose Ext.P7 and P9 interlocutory
applications within a time stipulated by this
Hon’ble Court.
b) Issue a direction to maintain status quo of the
disputed pathway by both parties till disposal of
Ext.P6 and P8 appeals pending before the District
Court, Manjeri.
c) Issue a direction staying the operation of Ext.P5
judgment till disposal of Exts.P6 and P8 appeals
pending before the District Court, Manjeri. and
d) Pass any other appropriate order or direction
which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to issue
and the petitioner may pray from time to time.”
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. In the manner in which I
O.P.(C) NO.37 OF 2011 O
:: 3 ::
propose to dispose of the Original Petition, it is not necessary to
issue notice to the other respondents.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Original
Petition is disposed of as follows: The learned District Judge,
Manjeri shall hear and dispose of I.A.No.1161 of 2010 in A.S.No.89
of 2010 and I.A.No.1160 of 2010 in A.S.No.87 of 2010, as
expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is not
proper to consider at this stage the question whether status quo
should be directed to be maintained till the matter is considered by
the District Court. That prayer has to be considered by the learned
District Judge. Likewise, the question whether stay should be
granted in respect of the decree in O.S.No.1 of 2010 is also a matter
to be considered by the learned District Judge after hearing all the
affected parties.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/