High Court of KeralaFAO/145/2014disposed of

Devalal v. Mohanan

2015-03-24Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/3RD CHAITHRA, 1937 FAO.No. 145 of 2014 ----------------------- I.A.NO.4666/2013 IN A.S.NO.304/2013 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. .........

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

-------------------------------------- DEVALAL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, VANNERIKKATTIL @ ALAKKARAN HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, PERINJANAM DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND HIS WIFE SHEEJA DEVALAL, AGED 42 YEARS, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, PERINJANAM DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 686. BY ADVS.SMT.K.GIRIJA SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

-----------------------------------------------

1. MOHANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, KARUKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, P.O.PERINJANAM, PERINJANAM DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 686.

2. SARALA, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.MOHANAN, KARUKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, P.O.PERINJANAM, PERINJANAM DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 686.

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O.No.145 OF 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.250/11 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakkuda. O.S.250/11 was a suit for declaration of the easement right claimed by the plaintiff over plaint B schedule property in the suit and for injunction. The defendants in the suit preferred O.S.348/2010 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda, seeking a decree of injunction against the plaintiff. Both the suits were tried together and by a common judgment, the trial court dismissed O.S.250/11 and decreed O.S.No.348/10. Aggrieved by the common judgment, the appellant preferred two appeals. A.S.304/13 was preferred against the judgment in O.S.250/11 and A.S.305/13 was preferred against the judgment in O.S.348/10 before the District Court, Thrissur. In A.S.304/13, the appellant has also filed I.A.4666/13 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants in suit O.S.250/11 from interfereing with the user of the plaint B schedule property. The appellate court as per the order impugned in the appeal dismissed I.A.4666/13. Hence this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

F.A.O.No.145 OF 2014 : 2 :

counsel for the respondents.

3. The impugned order was passed as early as 7th February, 2014. This appeal is seen filed on 9.4.2014. No interim order is seen granted in favour of the appellant. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to consider the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal. According to me, the grievance of the appellant can be redressed by directing the appellate court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of directing the District Court, Thrissur to dispose of the appeal, A.S.Nos.304/13 as expeditiously as possible.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE jes