MATHEW RAJ Vs. EDAKKANDI JANAMMA M R JANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No.3 in O.S.No.180 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Koothuparamba and the appellant in C.M.A.No.52 of 2010 of the court of learned District Judge, Thalassery is the petitioner before me. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for injunction to restrain petitioner and respondent No.2 onwards from removing the ladder situated on the southern extremity of the building or obstructing her using the said ladder for access to the room in her possession which is situated on the upstair towards northern portion of the building. She alleged that she has no other means of access to the said room. Suit was filed on 03.07.2010. The same day at 6.45 p.m. the Advocate Commissioner inspected property and reported that he could not find any ladder for access to the portion of building in the occupation of respondent No.1. There was also an application for temporary injunction in the above lines which was resisted by petitioner contending that there was no such ladder as B schedule referred to in the plaint. Learned Munsiff granted an order of injunction as prayed for. That order is under challenge in C.M.A.No.52 of 2010. Petitioner asserted that there is no ladder as B schedule in the plaint on the southern extremity of the building which portion belongs to the petitioner. In the appeal since respondent No.1 had filed caveat no interim order could be obtained and the appeal is now posted on 27.10.2010. In the meantime respondent No.1 filed Ext.P6, application in the trial court seeking police aid to enforce the order of injunction (which is under challenge in C.M.A.No.52 of 2010). That application is posted on 29.09.2010. The purport of this petition is to direct parties to maintain status quo till the C.M.Appeal is disposed of. Learned counsel states that it is in respect of a non- existent ladder as reported by the Advocate Commissioner that the trial court had granted interim order of injunction which itself is under challenge in C.M.A.No.52 of 2010. According to the learned counsel, attempt of respondent No.1 is to put up a new ladder in the guise of the interim order of injunction and for the said purpose has filed Ext.P6, application. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the report of Advocate Commissioner to the effect that he could not see access to the portion of building in the occupation of respondent No.1

(2.) IT is the case of respondent No.1 that petitioner removed the ladder just before the inspection of the Advocate Commissioner and once the Commissioner left the place petitioner replaced the ladder. Whether that claim is correct or not, is not to be decided in this proceedings. Since the matter is pending before the trial and appellate courts proper course open to the petitioner is to approach those courts and seek appropriate reliefs. IT is not as if petitioner could not seek reliefs from any of those courts as provided under law in the manner claimed by petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I do not consider it just or proper to interfere in the matter at this stage. Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs from appropriate court this petition is closed.