FRANCIS Vs. RAPHEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS against whom learned Munsiff has entered a finding of violation of the order of status quo and who consequently face an order for detention in the civil prison for 15 days have come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda to consider Ext.P4 or Ext.P5, and to pass appropriate orders as this Court deems fit. Petitioner No.1 and respondent are direct brothers and petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. PETITIONERS sued respondent for a declaration of title over 15 cents of land and a shopping complex. Respondent resisted the suit by raising a counter claim for recovery of possession of that property on the strength of title claimed by him and filed I.A. No.1189 of 2009 for an order of injunction against petitioners making constructions in the said property. Learned Munsiff has passed an order of status quo. Respondent filed I.A. No.2581 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that petitioners have violated the order of status quo. That resulted in Ext.P3, order as per which petitioners are found to have violated the order of status quo and they are ordered to be detained in the Civil Prison for 15 days. Challenging that order petitioners have filed C.M.A. No.38 of 2010 (Ext.P4) in the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda and Ext.P5, application for stay. Learned counsel contends that the appeal and application for stay came up for hearing on 17.09.2010 and it is now posted on 22.09.2010. In the meantime the Amin deputed by the learned Munsiff is approaching petitioners to take them to custody for their detention in the civil prison. Hence this Writ Petition. Learned counsel requested that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, order may be stayed until the C.M. Appeal or application for stay is considered by the learned Sub Judge.

(2.) IT is pointed out that the appeal and application for stay are coming up for hearing on 22.09.2010. Since application for stay is also coming up for hearing it is only proper that execution of Ext.P3, order is kept in abeyance for some time. Hence I am inclined to direct that Ext.P3, order shall stand in abeyance for a period of two weeks during which period it will be open to the petitioners to move Exts.P4 and P5 and get appropriate orders from the learned Sub Judge. Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Exhibit P3, order on I.A. No.2581 of 209 in O.S. No.1232 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Irinjalakuda will stand in abeyance for a period of two weeks from this day or till orders are passed by the learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda on Ext.P5, application for stay, whichever is earlier. (ii) I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised by the petitioners as to the correctness of Ext.P3, order.