KUNHI MOHAMMED Vs. KUNHEETHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.61 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Parappanangadi is the petitioner before me. He sued for a decree for prohibitory injunction against causing obstruction to the pathway. Learned Munsiff granted an order of interim injunction. Advocate Commissioner reported the existence of the pathway. Later, that pathway was allegedly blocked and that fact was reported by the Advocate Commissioner, according to the petitioner. To remove the obstruction petitioner filed Ext.P6, application and that was allowed granting two months' time to the respondent remove the obstruction. In the meantime the order of prohibitory and mandatory injunction were challenged by the respondent in C.M appeals (Exts.P7 and P8) before learned Sub Judge, Tirur. Grievance of petitioner is that neither Ext.P6, order has been enforced by the learned Munsiff in spite of there being no stay nor Exts.P7 and P8, appeals disposed of by the learned Sub Judge. Having regard to the circumstances of the case learned Sub Judge, Tirur is directed to dispose of Exts.P7 and P8, C.M appeals as early as possible considering the grievance of petitioner, if preliminary steps on the appeals are over. Petition is disposed of as above.