(1.) Ext.P5 order is under challenge. The defendant in O.S No.366 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court - I, Kozhikode is the petitioner. Plaintiff is the respondent.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
(3.) The respondent's suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner and his men from trespassing into a common veranda described in plaint C schedule property and annexing the same to the shop rooms described in the plaint B schedule property. Admittedly, the respondent is the owner of a larger building of which, two rooms were purchased by the petitioner. The building in dispute is a commercial building. In front of the shop rooms, described in plaint B schedule property, there is a common veranda. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had made some constructions causing inconvenience to the users of the building and invading his ownership right. Whereas, the petitioner would contend that he has not made any new construction and the iron rail said to have been constructed by the petitioner was in existence long before the suit. That fact is strongly disputed by the respondent. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application against which the respondent went in appeal. The appellate court passed Ext.P5 judgment in C.M.A No.23 of 2017 and the prayer in the petition was allowed in part. Aggrieved by that judgment, the petitioner/defendant has come up before this court.