IMMANUEL Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.V. Baby appearing for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment of C.S. Rajan, J. in O.P. No. 20715 of 1998 dated 27th November, 1998. The appellant filed the said Original Petition for quashing Ext. P9 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palai, which is a conditional order passed under S.133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant moved an application for injunction before the Munsiff's Court, Pala as O.S. 258/98. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both parties, passed an order dated 21st August, 1998, that is after the conditional order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, directing to maintain status quo as seen by the Commissioner's report dated 8.6.98 until the disposal of the suit. The suit itself was filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their man or agents to enter into the plaint schedule property nor demolishing the boundary wall, destroying the valuable improvements or to construct any road. I. A. No. 1302 of 1998 was filed for temporary injunction. A caveat was filed by the defendants/respondents herein. Upon hearing both parties and upon perusal of the records the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the appellant herein is the owner in possession of only a small plot of land he has put up a residential building there and has also constructed walls. The learned Munsiff, therefore, ordered to maintain status quo. The appellant filed the present Original Petition to quash Ext. P9 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and also for a writ of prohibition restraining the Revenue Divisional Officer from proceeding in any manner on Ext. P7 petition submitted by respondents 1 to 17 in the Original Petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. The learned single Judge, by the judgment impugned in this appeal, dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that the appellant has filed the suit after the passing of Ext. P9 order and obtained an order of status quo. Under the circumstances, the learned single Judge held that the challenge against Ext. P9 cannot at all be countenanced. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner in the Original Petition has filed this appeal.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 17 herein filed a petition before the 18th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer under S.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, copy of which is produced in the Original Petition as Ext. P7. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext. P9 conditional order under S.133(1) of the Code directing the opposite parties viz. the appellant herein and 17 others to remove the obstruction made by him and allowed the petitioners in M.C. 41 of 1998 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to enter tractors and tillers into the paddy field within seven days of receipt of Ext. P9, which is dated 15th June, 1998.