High Court of KeralaOP(C)/3249/2013disposed of

Jisha Binu v. Joseph Johnson

2015-05-26Honourable Mr. Justice A.Hariprasad4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2015/5TH JYAISHTA, 1937 OP(C).No. 3249 of 2013 (O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.78/2013 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED 17.07.2013 PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- JISHA BINU, AGED 35, W/O.KURUTHUKULANGARAVEETTIL BINU CHOONDAL VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK.

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. JOSEPH JOHNSON S/O.CHOONDALVEETTIL JOHNSON, CHOONDAL VILLAGE DESOM TALAPPILLY TALUK 680001

2. JACOB SHAJI S/O.CHOONDALVEETTIL SHAJI CHOONDAL VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK 680001.

3. THOMAS ZAKARIA S/O.CHOONDALVEETTIL ZAKARIA, CHOONDAL VILLAGE DESOM TALAPPILLY TALUK 680001 R1 TO R 3 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN R1 TO R 3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJITH THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C).No. 3249 of 2013 (O) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.387 OF 2013 DATED 6.3.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT IN EXT.P1 SUIT DATED 19.3.2013 EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT IN EXT.P1 SUIT DATED 21.3.2013 EXT.P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR IN I.A.NO.3537 OF 2013 IN O.S.NO.387 OF 2013 DATED 11.4.2013 EXT.P-5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CMA NO.78 OF 2013 DATED 17.7.2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY//

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

-------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3249 of 2013 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2015

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.387 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Thrissur is the petitioner. She challenges Ext.P5 judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge in C.M.A.No.78 of 2013. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction reliefs. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents/defendants were trying to cause hindrance to the user of plaint A schedule property by the petitioner and she also sought for a mandatory injunction to remove the shed unauthorisedly constructed in plaint B schedule property blocking the access to plaint A schedule property. The trial court as per Ext.P4 order allowed the application and a temporary injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioner. The respondents took up the matter in appeal to the lower appellate court. After considering the matter, the learned Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

As mentioned above, the suit is one for injunction reliefs. It was instituted in the year 2013. Considering the contentions raised by the

OP(C) No.3249/2013 parties, I am of the view that no earthy purpose will be served to any of the parties by considering matters in the interlocutory application, especially when the suit itself can be disposed of on merits. Therefore, I am of the view that court below can be directed to dispose of the case on merits as early as possible. The trial court shall proceed with the matter untrammelled by any of the observations contained in Ext.P5 judgment passed by the lower appellate court.

In the result, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammelled by the observations contained in the impugned judgment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

cks