SREEKUMAR Vs. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.932 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff of Neyyattinkara. THE interim injunction granted in the suit was modified by the trial court as per the order dated 7.11.2008. THE court passed an order restraining forcible eviction of the plaintiff from the first floor of the plaint schedule building. THE court also passed an order that the plaintiff shall not do any act of interference with the possession of the defendant in respect of the other areas. THE case of the plaintiff was that the defendant forcibly entered into a portion of the building. Recovery of possession was accordingly sought in the suit. THErefore, naturally, the Court was justified in directing the plaintiff not to disturb the possession of the defendant in respect of that portion of the building in which he is in possession. However, the plaintiff was not satisfied with the order passed by the trial court. He filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. C.M.A.No.8 of 2009 was dismissed on 5.12.2009 as not pressed. THE learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant endorsed that the C.M.Appeal was not pressed.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application for review of the judgment in C.M.A.No.8 of 2009 on the ground that he did not give instruction to the counsel to report that the appeal is not pressed. THE Appellate Court dismissed the Review Petition by the order dated 15.6.2010, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. THE petitioner also challenged the judgment in the C.M.Appeal dismissing the same as not pressed.

(3.) THERE is no error apparent on the face of the record in C.M.A.No.8 of 2009, as rightly held by the court below, since the counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant endorsed on the Memorandum of Appeal that the appeal was not pressed. It is not necessary to consider the relevance of the complaint filed by the petitioner against the counsel before the Bar Council of Kerala. No grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment in C.M.A.NO.8 of 2009 and the order in the Review Petition in the C.M.Appeal. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by the trial court is likely to be taken into account by the trial court at the time of trial, in which case, the petitioner would be highly prejudiced. The trial court passed the order in the application for temporary injunction and the order passed thereon would have no impact at the time of final disposal of the suit.