ABRAHAM Vs. KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 and 3 in O. S.204 of 1992 of the Munsiff' s Court, Perumbavoor who are counter petitioners 1 and 2 in I.A. 30 of 1993 in the said suit are the revision petitioners. First respondent is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit and second respondent is the first defendant in the said suit. First respondent instituted the said suit on 31-3-1992 for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners and the second respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the first respondent. He moved I.A.945 of 1992 for a temporary injunction. On 31-3-1992 itself defendants 2 and 3, the revision petitioners entered appearance, and after hearing them also the learned Munsiff ordered the revision petitioners to keep status quo; and issued an interim injunction against the first defendant. A commission was taken out by the plaintiff on the same date. He filed Ext.C2 report and Ext.C2(a) sketch. He visited the property at 4.30 p.m on 31-3-1992.

(2.) According to the plaintiff there is no canal through the plaint schedule property. But the revision petitioners contended that from the Periyar Valley Canal water was being taken through a small canal running north to south through the plaint schedule property immediately to the south of its eastern boundary. The defendants maintained that after purchasing the said property the plaintiff filled the canal filed the suit and got the said order from court.

(3.) On 2-4-1992 the revision petitioners filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under S.147 Cr.P.C. He passed a preliminary order on 22-9-1992 calling upon the first respondent plaintiff to restore the thodu within three days of the receipt of the order or to appear before him and show cause. Pursuant to the said order the first respondent filed a written statement stating that the matter is pending before the Civil Court in O.S.No.204 of 1992 and that he has already obtained a temporary injunction. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 10-12-1992 confirming the preliminary order and directed the first respondent to restore the said thodu within two days, and further directed the Sub Inspector of Police to restore the thodu if the first respondent failed to restore it The first respondent filed a revision against the said order before the Sessions Court and obtained a stay. But before the stay could be communicated, the canal was opened through the plaint schedule property. Later the revision was dismissed as it was reported to have become infructuous.