IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31897 of 2009(O)
1. MYTHEENKANNU,AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MOHAMMED PATHUMMAL,
Vs
1. V.GIREESHAN,AGED 42 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :11/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.31897 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following
relief:
i. to direct the 2nd Additional Munsiff’s
Court, Neyyattinkara to dispose the
application for temporary injunction
I.A.No.2898 of 2009 in O.S.No.461 of
2009 based on Exts.P5 and P6 commission
reports without insisting for any further
report of the commissioner.
2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.461 of 2009
on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara.
Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the
respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff has claimed a
right of way through the property of the defendants and that
way has been described in the plaint as ‘A’ schedule. Property
WPC.31897/09 2
of the plaintiff is shown as ‘A’ schedule and that of the
defendant as ‘B’ schedule. On the application for an interim
injunction moved by the plaintiff, an ex parte order of
injunction was granted by the learned Munsiff, to which
petitioners/defendants have filed objections. An Advocate
Commissioner deputed by the court had already filed a report,
but, it is stated to be without notice to the
petitioners/defendants. On appearance, filing objections to
that report, petitioners/defendants applied for deputing the
Advocate Commission again contending that
respondent/plaintiff has an alternate way and also disputing
the existence of ‘C’ schedule way. The commission, after
visiting the property again, filed a second report. The court
below thereupon remitted the report seeking further
clarification from the Advocate commissioner. At that stage,
the present writ petition was filed before this Court
challenging the order passed by the court to remit the report
directing the commission to file a fresh report.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. it is
submitted during the pendency of the writ petition, the
WPC.31897/09 3
commission, after conducting local inspection again, has filed
a fresh report as well. The learned counsel for the petitioners
confined his submissions only to seek the issue of
order/direction to the court below to dispose expeditiously the
interlocutory application for injunction moved by the
respondent/plaintiff in which an ex parte order of injunction
had already been granted by the court. I direct the learned
Munsiff to dispose the application for injunction I.A.No.2898
of 2009 in the above suit, after hearing the counsel on both
sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period
of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this judgment. Writ the above direction, the writ petition is
disposed.
Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the
petitioners on usual terms and send a copy of the judgment to
the court concerned forthwith.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp