K E EAPEN Vs. K G REETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is defendant and respondent the plaintiff in O.S.1350/2005 on the file of First Additional Munsiff court, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents filed I.A.9380/05, application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, for an order of temporary injunction. They also filed I.A.9381/05 for a direction to construct the northern demolished portion of the compound wall. Petitioner resisted both applications contending that he has got a right over the road leading to his property and respondent has not exclusive right over the road. As per Ext.P8 order learned Munsiff found a prima facie case in favour of respondents. Holding that balance of convenience is also in their favour, under Ext.P8 order learned Munsiff allowed both the applications. Petitioner challenged the common order in C.M.A.Nos.145/05 and 146/05. As per Ext.P9 common order, learned District Judge dismissed both appeals confirming the prima facie case and balance of convenience found by learned Munsiff. These writ petitions were filed challenging Ext.P9 common order.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

(3.) Argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Munsiff and District Judge did not properly appreciate the case and under the orders in interlocutory applications the very reliefs sought for in the suit were granted and by the result of the order, petitioner has no way to his property and petitioner cannot enjoy his property and in such circumstance, Ext.P8 and P9 orders are to be quashed.