Sreejith vs Kulamullathil Sreedharan

Kerala High Court

Sreejith vs Kulamullathil Sreedharan on 21 May, 2024

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE     KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

     TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY   2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946

                        OP(C) NO. 2337 OF 2021

           OS NO.23 OF 2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA

PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

     1     SREEJITH
           AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, ILLATHPOTIL HOUSE,
           ERAMALA VILLAGE, ORKKATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, ORKKATTIRI
           P.O., EP 7/184, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673
           106.
     2     SHILPA
           AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. SREEJITH, ILLATHPOTIL HOUSE,
           ERAMALA VILLAGE, ORKKATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, ORKKATTIRI
           P.O., EP 7/184, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673
           106.
           BY ADVS. KRISHNADAS P. NAIR K.L.SREEKALA HARIDAS
           P.NAIR M.A.VINOD M.RAJESH KUMAR

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

           KULAMULLATHIL SREEDHARAN
           AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, ILLATHPOTIL HOUSE, ERAMALA
           VILLAGE, ORKKATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, ORKKATTIRI P.O, EP
           7/184, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 106.

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) 2337/2021
                                  -2-




                             JUDGMENT

Ext.P7 order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC is under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S No.23/2021 pending on the file of Munsiff Court, Vadakara (for, short 'the Trial Court'). The respondent is the plaintiff. The petitioners are son and daughter in law of the respondent.

3. The dispute is with respect to the plaint schedule house belonging to the plaintiff. Ext.P1 is the plaint. The suit was instituted for a permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish unauthorised construction made to the plaint schedule house. Along with OP(C) 2337/2021 -3- the plaint, the plaintiff filed an interim injunction application as Ext.P2. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P4 order, whereby, the defendants were restrained by an order of temporary injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule house. The prayer for restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule house was not granted. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff approached Sub Court, Vadakara (for short, Appellate Court') by filing CMA 2/2021. In CMA 2/2021, the plaintiff filed an interim injunction application as I.A 2/2021. The appellate Court, after hearing both sides, allowed I.A No.2/2021 and the following order has been passed:

"14. Point No.(ii):- In view of the finding on point No.(i). this petition is allowed as follows:-

i) Respondents are permitted to use the newly built room, bath room and latrine constructed in the property of petitioner's wife.

OP(C) 2337/2021 -4-

ii) If the entrance to the said additional room is through the main entrance of plaint schedule house, respondents are at liberty to provide a door to the newly built room from the property of petitioner's wife with her permission.

iii) If the construction of such a door is not possible, respondents shall remove themselves from the plaint schedule house within one month from today if an alternate accommodation for the 2 nd petitioner and her child could be arranged by the 1 st respondent or the petitioner.

iv) No order as to costs."

It is challenging the said order, the defendants have come before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no appearance for the respondent.

5. I.A No.2/2021 was disposed of as early as in 29.03.2021. It is submitted that the CMA 2/2021 itself has been disposed of. Hence, the challenge against the impugned order has practically become infructuous. The suit has been pending since 2021. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there may be a direction to the OP(C) 2337/2021 -5- Trial Court to dispose of the suit itself. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. The parties shall maintain the status-quo till the disposal of the suit.

The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE JS OP(C) 2337/2021 -6- APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2337/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OS NO.23/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN IA NO.2/2021 IN OS NO.23/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.23/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2/2021 IN OS NO.23/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA DATED 19.2.2021.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.2/2021 IN CMA NO.2/2021 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, VATAKARA.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IA NO.2/2021 IN CMA NO.2/21 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, VATAKARA. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2/2021 IN CMA NO.2/21 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, VATAKARA.