High CourtsSingle Bench

Manikandan vs Jijimon

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 20 April 2021 · Citation: (2021) 04 KL CK 0143

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Haripal, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (C) No. 962 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 340 words
1.

The petitioner claims that he is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 43/2021 of Munsiff Court, Mannarkkad. It is a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the respondent and others from entering upon plaint schedule property which is 5 cents of land as shown in Ext.P3, A schedule comprised in survey No.1159/6 of Agaly Village. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained an ex parte order of interim injunction against the respondent from trespassing upon the property and committing acts of improvement, altering its lie and interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

2.

According to him, suppressing this order, the respondent filed another suit as O.S.No.46/2021 and obtained a similar order of interim injunction against the petitioner. Both the parties had also taken out commission and ex parte, the report of the commissioners have been obtained. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that on the eve of the summer vacation, the learned Munsiff had heard both the petitions in detail and that order was supposed to be pronounced on or before the closing date. But, an order has not been pronounced. Taking advantage of this position, now the respondent is engaged in putting up construction activities in the property. Therefore, the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Mannarkkad is sought to be directed to dispose of I.A.No.146/2021 in O.S.No.43/2021 and I.A.No.155/2021 in O.S.No.46/2021, within a definite time frame. In the light of the submissions and the nature of the relief sought, I do not think that notice need be issued to the respondent.

3.

After going through the contentions of the petitioner and perusing the materials, it is certain that the learned Munsiff has not pronounced the order, after hearing both sides. In the circumstances, one party cannot be allowed to take advantage of the situation. Now, commission reports are in place. Therefore, it is only expedient in the interest of justice to direct the parties to maintain status quo till orders are passed by the Munsiff.

The O.P.(C) is disposed of as above.