ARANAVALAPPIL ERUVADI Vs. VILASINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed to set aside the order in I.A.No.2/2022 in O.S. No.136/2022 (Ext.P10) of the Court of the Munsiff, Hosdurg(Trial Court) and the judgment in CMA No.16/2022 (Ext.P11) of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg (Appellate Court).

(2.) The petitioners' case, relevant for the determination of the original petition is that, they are the defendants in the above suit, which was filed by the respondents before the Trial Court for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, inter-alia, to restrain the petitioners and their men from trespassing into plaint 'B' schedule property and obstructing their user. Along with the suit, the respondents have filed Ext.P2 application, seeking an order of temporary injunction. The application was opposed by the petitioners by filing Ext.P3 counter statement. Ext.P4 is the partition deed. At the instance of the respondents, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who has filed Exts.P5 and P6, report and sketch. On the basis of Exts. P5 and P6, the Trial court, by Ext.P7 order, directed the parties to maintain 'status quo'. As Exts.P5 and P6 suffered from defects and inadequacy, the petitioners filed I.A. No.5/2022 to depute the Advocate Commissioner to elucidate additional matters as sought for in the application. The Advocate Commissioner has filed Exts.P8 and P9, additional report and sketch. The Trial Court, by impugned Ext.P10 order, has passed an order of temporary injunction as prayed for in Ext.P2 application. Ext.P10 order has been confirmed by the Appellate Court by Ext.P11 judgment. Exts.P10 and P11 are manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri. Suresh Kumar Kodoth, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.