C. ANIL Vs. SUNDARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O .P. (C) 3776/2011 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 1790/2006 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging order dated 8.8.2011 in I.A. No. 5801/2011. O.P. (C) 3781/2011 is filed by the very same petitioner in O.P. (C) 3776/2011, who is the defendant in O.S. 23/2007 of the said court challenging order dated 8.8.2011 in I.A. No. 5781/2011.

(2.) THE petitioner as plaintiff initially filed O.S. 1790/2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking a decree of perpetual injunction thereby restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from committing waste thereon, and for putting up the western boundary of the plaint schedule property. It seems that later the plaint was amended by modifying the western boundary as the eastern boundary. The defendants in the said suit as plaintiffs, filed O.S. 23/07 before the said court seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein from converting 'D' schedule pathway as part of the property of the petitioner and also from causing obstructions to the entry of the plaintiffs into the plaint 'D' schedule pathway, and also for a mandatory injunction for demolishing the new basement constructed by the petitioner on the eastern portion of plaint 'D' schedule pathway. The said properties are neighbouring properties.

(3.) IN O.S. 23/2007 PWs. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the plaintiff and the same was adjourned for further evidence. The petitioner herein filed Ext. P2, I.A. 3052/2011, under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short 'the Code') in O.S. 1790/2006 for getting the suit restored. Through Ext. P3 order dated 11.4.2011 the court below allowed the said IA on cost of 2,000/ - to be paid within five days. In the mean time, there was a change of vakkalath of the counsel for the petitioner. Without noticing Ext. P3 order, Ext. P4, I.A. 3799/2011 was once again filed under Order IX Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code for getting the suit restored. It seems that the court below allowed the said IA on payment of costs of 1,500/ - on 30.06.2011, without noticing the fact that earlier the very same request was granted. The said cost was paid. The petitioner filed Ext. P5, I.A. 5801/2011, seeking a review of the order in I.A. 3052/2011 and for the enlargement of time for payment of costs. Through Ext. P6 order dated 8.8.2011, the court below has chosen to dismiss IA 5801/2011. It is aggrieved by the same, OP 3776/2011 has been filed.