SARASWATHY Vs. VAMANAPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this court directing the Munsiff court, Nedumangadu to dispose of I.A.3343/2013 in O.S.611/2016 pending before that court and till then status quo of the property has to be kept in abeyance under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.611 of 2016 before the Munsiff court, Nedumangadu for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from trespassing into the plaint B schedule property and from converting the same to a public pathway and from metalling or tarring or concreting the B schedule property and from doing anything detrimental to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint B schedule property. Hee had also produced Ext.P1 tax receipt. Ext.P2 is the letter given by the petitioner to the Electricity Board not to remove the electric post in the plaint B schedule property or convert the private pathway into public pathway. He had also given Ext.P3 complaint. There was an earlier injunction in respect of the plaint B schedule property evidenced by Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the letter sent by the Secretary, Kallara Grama Panchayat intimating the injunction order in the order suit namely O.S.235/2010. Ext.P7 is the present plaint filed by the petitioner against Vamanapuram Block Panchayat, Kallara Grama Panchayath, Assistant Execution Engineer, Vamanapuram Block Panchayath, Schedule caste Development Officer, Vamanapuram Block Panchayath and one Rajesh, seeking the above relief. Ext.P8 is the application filed by the petitioner seeking injunction. Ext.P9 is the application for appointment of a commission and that the application was allowed. In the meantime, the petitioner received Ext.P10 notice from the District Collector regarding the application given by the Electricity Board seeking permission for removing the Electric post. The grievance of the petitioner was that the court below has not passed any order in the injunction application and the respondents are taking hasty steps to proceed with the widening of plaint B schedule property without their consent and if it is done, petitioner will be put to hardship. So the petitioner filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that a report can be called for from the court concerned. Accordingly a report has been called for and the learned Munsiff has sent a report which reads as follows:-