MALLIKA DEVI AMMA Vs. KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition arises from the judgment of learned Second Additional District Judge-II, Kozhikode in C.M.A.No.39 of 2011 modifying the order passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Kozhikode on I.A.No.1147 of 2011 in O.S.No.385 of 2010. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction. Petitioner filed written statement and counter claim making claim over the suit property as if it belonged to her and seeking decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass. Respondent filed I.A.No.2009 of 2010 while petitioner filed I.A.No.2074 of 2010, both for an order of prohibitory injunction. Trial court as per Ext.P4 directed parties to maintain status quo. Alleging that respondents violated that order by constructing a well, fence and compound wall in the suit property petitioner filed I.A.No.1147 of 2011 for an order of mandatory injunction to remove the impugned constructions. That application was allowed by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P9, order. Respondents challenged that order in appeal in C.M.A.No.39 of 2011. Learned Additional District Judge after going through the records held that so far as construction of fence is concerned, there is violation of Ext.P9, order of status quo and hence respondents are liable to remove the fence on the north and south of the suit property. So far as the compound wall on the east is concerned, learned Additional District Judge felt doubt whether the said compound wall is constructed in the suit property. It is observed that it is not clear from the materials produced whether the eastern compound wall (sought to be removed) is inside the suit property or not. So far as the well is concerned, learned Additional District Judge opined that even at the time of first inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, construction of the well was going on and in the circumstance, it is not proper to direct closure of the well at this stage. It is accordingly that Ext.P9, order was modified.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner contends that the order of status quo was violated with impunity and if the order of Court is allowed to be violated that will result in non administration of justice.