IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 555 of 2003()
1. R.RAGHAVAN S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI,
... Respondent
2. S.GOPAKUMAR S/O. DHAKARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
For Respondent :SRI.D.SAJEEV
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :17/12/2007
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.555 of 2003
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1859/2000, on the
file of the Court of the II Addl. Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit
is for injunction in respect of a building in the occupation of the
revision petitioner/plaintiff. As per the order dated 24.11.2000, the
trial court made the interim injunction absolute. Against that order
the defendants filed C.M.A.No.49/01 before the First Additional
District Court-Thiruvananthapuram. The appellate court noticed that
there was change in the statusquo as noted on the date of suit. The
appeal was allowed and the order passed by the trial court was set
aside. However, the appellate court stated thus in the judgment :
“It is also hereby made clear that the order will not affect
the peaceful occupation of the plaint schedule property
by the respondent till the suit is finally disposed of. The
appellant shall not do anything which will effect the
peaceful occupation of the plaint schedule property by
the respondent.”
2. The appellate court also stated that the plaintiff would be
entitled to take appropriate steps in respect of the violation of the
order of injunction allegedly made by the defendants. The interest of
CRRP555/03 2
the plaintiff was protected to that extent.
3. Along with this revision C.M.P.No.1416/03 was filed by the
revision petitioner/plaintiff praying for restraining the defendants
from cutting away the existing amenities to the building or in any way
obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint
schedule building by him or committing waste therein. On 26.2.2003,
the following order was passed in that application: “There will be an
interim injunction restraining forcible eviction from what remains of
the building which is the subject matter of the suit for one month”.
The said interim order was being extended from time to time and it
was extended until further orders on 30.5.2003. In view of the order
passed in C.M.P.No.1416/2003, I am of the view of that the Civil
Revision Petition can be disposed of confirming the interim order
granted by this court and directing the trial court to dispose of the
suit as expeditiously as possible. The judgment impugned is modified
to the above extent.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl