SHARMILA AND OTHERS Vs. KAUSU. G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) Challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P5 order and Ext.P6 judgment passed by the courts below. Ext.P5 order was passed by the trial court in an application for temporary injunction in a suit for fixation of boundary and consequential permanent prohibitory injunction relief. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order the petitioners had filed an appeal. Ext.P6 is the judgment in the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are fishermen, eking out a livelihood on daily income. The dispute may last for a long time. They are in dire need of constructing a residential building in their property. It is submitted that despite this contention was urged before the courts below and expressing the petitioners' willingness to file an affidavit unconditionally undertaking to demolish the construction, if found to be protruding into the respondent's property, the courts below did not allow them to take recourse to that.