SATHYABHAMA Vs. RUGMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P7, order dated 01.12.2012 on I.A.No.1813 of 2012 (Ext.P5, application) in A.S.No.66 of 2012 of the Sub Court, Perumbavoor is under challenge in this original petition filed by the appellant in that appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner filed O.S.No.248 of 2011 in the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor for enforcement of right of way she claimed over the plaint B schedule. The learned Munsiff had passed an order of temporary injunction on I.A.No.2046 of 2011 against causing obstruction to the plaint B schedule way. As per order on I.A.No.2157 of 2011, the learned Munsiff granted an order of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the (alleged) obstruction caused to the plaint B schedule way. (Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to that order, the obstruction was removed). Later the suit was dismissed..

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent has caused obstruction to the plaint B schedule way and since that is the only access to the property of the petitioner, it is highly necessary that the obstruction is removed for which a report of the Advocate Commissioner as prayed for in Ext.P5, application is essential.