OMANA Vs. SIVANANDAN ACARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the nature of the order I proposes to pass it is not necessary to issue notice to respondents and notice to them is dispensed with.

(2.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.262 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara. That is a suit filed against respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendant Nos.1 and 2 for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespassing into plaint B schedule property, constructing boundary wall and encroaching into the suit property or closing the pathway. Learned Munsiff on I.A. No.1373 of 2010 passed Ext.P2, order of interim injunction. Advocate Commissioner submitted report and sketch. While so respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed O.S.No.282 and 355 of 2010, respectively against petitioner for an order of injunction. Exhibit P6 is the order of injunction in O.S. No.355 of 2010. Exhibit P7 is the application for injunction filed in O.S. No.282 of 2010 against petitioner cutting open a pathway. To that, petitioner has preferred Ext.P8, objection. According to the petitioner I.A. No.1373 of 2010 in O.S. No.262 of 2010 was posted for hearing on 29.09.2010. Petitioner states that case was not called in open court on that day. In the meantime respondent No.1 filed Ext.P9, I.A. No.3011 of 2010 to modify Ext.P2, order of injunction and to permit him to construct boundary for plaint B schedule on his undertaking that he will demolish the wall in case the court finds in favour of pathway claimed by petitioner. Exhibit P9 and I.A. No.1373 of 2010 have been taken up for orders to be pronounced on 08.10.2010. Grievance of petitioner is that he was not heard on the said applications. Petitioner filed Ext.P12, I.A. No.3073 of 2010 in O.S. No.262 of 2010 to hear him also before I.A. Nos.1373 and 3011 of 2010 are disposed of. If an order happens to be passed on 08.10.2010 against petitioner without hearing him, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

(3.) I am not going into the allegations of petitioner at this stage that though case was posted on 29.09.2010, the same was not called in open court and that no opportunity of hearing was given to him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is only proper that petitioner is given opportunity for hearing (or further hearing as the case may be) on the applications concerned before order is pronounced. It is also open to the learned Munsiff to consider whether all the pending applications if it concerned the same matter could be disposed of simultaneously. Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of directing learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara to give an opportunity to the petitioner for argument (further argument as the case may be) on the applications which have been taken for disposal before those applications are disposed of. Learned Munsiff is directed to keep in abeyance disposal of the said applications for a period of four working days from 08.10.2010.