VIJAYAKUMARI Vs. BEENA BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners approached the Munsiff Court, Attingal in O.S.No.63/2010 seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing 'C' schedule pathway which, according to the petitioners, is the only way to their property where they are residing. According to them, plaint A and B schedule property originally form portion of 1 Acre 25 Cents comprising Survey No.215 of Avanavanchery village. Along with the suit, the petitioners moved an I.A. before the trial court for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from causing obstruction to the alleged path way. The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application. The matter was taken in appeal before the appellate court, but without success.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the appellate authority in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The main grievance voiced against the impugned order as well as the order passed by the learned Munsiff is that both the courts below have entered into a finding that the petitioners are having a pathway which is made mention of in the partition deed entered into between the defendants.

(3.) ON a totality of the entire circumstances now placed before this Court, I am of the definite view that it is too early to make any pronouncements on the right of the parties at this juncture. So, in the fitness of things, it is only just and proper to direct the trial court to expedite the trial within a time frame untrammelled by the observations contained in the impugned order or in the order passed by the learned Munsiff on the aforesaid application.