CHANDIRUTHY HAMZA Vs. SAIDALAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows:

(2.) Heard Smt.N.Deepa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondent will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6/2014 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, which has been instituted for declaration and injunction. It is stated that along with the plaint, the petitioner has filed Ext.P-2 I.A.No.79/2014 for temporary injunction. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the properties and filed Ext.P-3 report and plan. It is further averred that on the date of first inspection the Commissioner has seen plaint B schedule way, which is stated to be the only way to the plaint A schedule. On 6.3.2014, on the basis of Ext.P-3 report, the Munsiff Court, Tirur, passed an order to maintain status quo by both the parties and that it is further stated that violating the order of status quo, the respondent demolished the slab over the canal which is the only way to ingress and egress to the plaint A schedule property and the Commissioner had again inspected the property and found that the slab was demolished as is referred to in Ext.P-5 report of the Commissioner dated 21.6.2014. Thereupon the petitioner has filed Ext.P-4 application dated 21.5.2014 as I.A.No.1257/2014 in the Original Suit under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to take action against the respondents for violation of the order of status quo passed by the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Munsiff Court by Ext.P-7 order dated 8.4.2016 had dismissed Ext.P-4 application. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred C.M.A.No.19/2016 before the Sub Court, Tirur, and the said appellate court has also confirmed impugned Ext.P-7 order as per Ext.P-8 judgment dated 27.9.2017, whereby the said C.M.A has been dismissed. It is challenging Ext.P-7 order rendered by the trial court and Ext.P8 judgment rendered by the lower appellate court, that the instant Original Petition (Civil) has been filed.