KUTTIKRISHNAN EZUTHASSAN Vs. O.M. AJAYSANKAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provision in Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.L.Rajesh Narayan Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, which was filed for restraining the respondents and their men from entering into the plaint schedule property, not to interfere with the entry to the shop and residence of the petitioner and also for mandatory injunction. Along with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.1033/2015 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or making construction of wall in front of the plaint schedule property. As per order dated 23.3.2015, an order of status quo was passed by the court below and the same was informed to respondents 2 and 3 and it is stated that even though the respondents 2 and 3 were served with the status quo order, they willfully violated the order and again unloaded additional granite stones and hollow bricks and therefore the petitioner and filed I.A.No.1471/2015 in the suit under Order 39, Rule 1 seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the granite stones and hollow bricks stocked on the northern and western side of the petition schedule property. The court below has passed order dated 11.6.2015 on the said I.A.No.1471/2015 in the Original Suit whereby an interim mandatory injunction was granted directing the respondents in the I.A to remove the granite stones and hollow bricks stocked on the northern and western side of the petition schedule property within two days from the date of the order. The said order dated 11.6.2015 granted by the learned Munsiff on I.A.No.1471/2015 in O.S.No.279/2015 was challenged by respondents herein by filing C.M.A.No.61/2015 before the District Court concerned. The Additional District Court-I, Palakkad, passed the Ext.P-3 judgment dated 30.6.2015 on C.M.A.No.61/2015 allowing it in part but had permitted the petitioner to remove the obstruction caused to his house and shop at his cost in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner and with the help of the Station House Officer concerned. On the basis of Ext.P-3 judgment in the above C.M.A, the petitioner with necessary police protection has removed the granite and hollow bricks to the office of Mundur-II Village Office. At that stage, the 1st respondent, who is not a party to the suit filed Ext.P-4 I.A.No.2822/2015 praying to entrust the said materials to him and Ext.P-4 I.A was allowed by Ext.P-6 order dated 6.4.2016 and the seized articles were stated to be released to the 1st respondent herein on his executing kychit of Rs. 25,000/-towards security of the property. It is stated that the court below relied on documents produced along with the application. It is aggrieved by Ext.P-6 order that the petitioner has filed C.M.A.No.99/2016 before the District Court, Palakkad and by Ext.P-11 dated 15.11.2017 the said C.M.A was dismissed finding that the court below was justified in ordering the release of the articles to the 1st respondent. It is also stated in Ext.P11 judgment that in case the petitioner has actually sustained any damages due to the acts of the respondents, he can recover the same from them and similarly if the 3rd party applicant has raised a claim over the articles without having a right over the same, the same can also be agitated in the suit by making him a party and recover damages from him. It is challenging the directions in Exts.P-6 and P-11 that the present Original Petition has been filed with the aforementioned prayers.