KUNHAMMED Vs. KARINKAPPARA CHOORAKKUZHIYIL SAIDALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are defendants in O.S.No.201 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Tirur. That is a suit for fixation of boundary or in the alternative, for recovery of possession if it is found that petitioners are in possession of the disputed property. As the learned counsel submits, about three years after the institution of the suit respondent filed I.A.No.1374 of 2010 for temporary injunction which was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Undaunted, respondent filed I.A.No.86 of 2011 in the same court again for an order of temporary injunction. That the learned Munsiff dismissed as per Ext.P7, order dated February 17, 2011 referring to the dismissal of the earlier application, failure of respondent to take out a commission along with the suit to identify the properties and based on what the Advocate Commissioner later appointed has reported.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel that learned Munsiff had observed while disposing of the application for injunction that respondent does not appear to be specific about the property in respect of which he has made the claim. While so, the dispute regarding valuation of plaint was carried in appeal by the respondent in A.S.No.29 of 2011 before learned Sub Judge, Tirur. In that appeal, respondent filed I.A.No.1171 of 2011, again for an order of injunction. That application was allowed as per Ext.P15, order dated June 22, 2011. Learned counsel submits that petitioners were infact not heard on that application and that the request of petitioners to grant some time was rejected and learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P15, order notwithstanding dismissal of earlier applications and the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Learned counsel submits that in view of Ext.P15, order petitioners are not able to carry out agricultural activities even in the property in their possession.

(3.) BUT, having regard to the circumstances stated and considering the fact that whatever be the reason thereof the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioners, it is only just and proper that the proceeding before the learned Sub Judge is expedited. Hence learned Sub Judge has to dispose of A.S.No.29 of 2011 as early as possible having regard to the grievance of petitioners which I have referred to above and which according to the learned counsel, is revealed by the records. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of directing learned Sub Judge, Tirur to dispose of A.S.No.29 of 2011 as early as possible taking into account the grievance and apprehension of petitioners.