High Court allowed the writ petition under Article 226. The judge quashed the first appellate order and directed maintenance of status quo, noting the trial court correctly found an obstruction requiring removal.
Order allowed; status quo maintained; obstruction to be removed within fifteen days on pain of cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 935 OF 2020
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SUB JUDGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN C.M.A.nO.17/2018 FILED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 25.06.2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN I.A.No.662/2018 AND 853/2018 IN O.S.No.117/2018)
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN C.M.A.No.17/2018:
RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN, S.N. SADANAM, THODIYOOR VADAKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 523.
BY ADVS. T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.J.OM PRAKASH SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT SHRI.T.S.BHARATH KRISHNA SHRI.ADHEEP VIJAY
RESPONDENTS/ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 IN C.M.A.No.17/2018
1 PRIYA ASHOKAN AGED 46 YEARS W/O. LATE ASHOKAN, VALEL VEEDU (ARUN BHAVANAM), THODIYOOR VADAKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 523.
2 ARUN.P. ASHOKAN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. LATE ASHOKAN, VALEL VEEDU (ARUN BHAVANAM), THODIYOOR VADAKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 523.
OP(C) NO. 935 OF 2020
2
3 ATHUN.P. ASHOKAN, AGED 15 YEARS(MINOR), S/O. LATE ASHOKAN, VALEL VEEDU (ARUN BHAVANAM), THODIYOOR VADAKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 523.
BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 935 OF 2020
3
JUDGMENT
In an application submitted for restoring the ante-status quo position at the instance of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court found that there is no obstruction as such, and the interim order granted by the trial court was revised by dismissing the application, against which the plaintiff came up under Article 227 of the Constitution. The trial court on consideration of the respective pleading and the Commissioner's report found that the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of mandatory injunction for restoring antestatus quo position by removing the obstruction created over the way in question. The first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court on the interlocutory application on the simple reason that there is no obstruction for which the
first appellate court relied on the 2nd
OP(C) NO. 935 OF 2020
4
commissioner's report. Hence, the party shall hereby directed to maintain the status quo as reported by the 2nd commissioner and if any obstruction found, created at the entrance of the said way or any other part of the way, it shall be removed within fifteen days from today to maintain status quo as stated above. If it is not removed within that time the plaintiff will be at liberty to remove the same through court at the risk and cost of the
defendants.
This O.P(C) will stand allowed accordingly.
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
LEK
OP(C) NO. 935 OF 2020
5
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 935/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 117/2018 DATED 17.03.20218 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 04.12.2018 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN OS NO. 117/2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 662/2018 IN O.S. NO. 117/2018 DATED 17.03.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A. 662/2018 IN O.S. NO. 117/2018 DATED 24.05.2018 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR AND REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, BUSHRA IN O S. NO. 117/2018 DATED 11.04.,2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 853/2018 IN O.S. NO. 117/2018 DATED 06.04.2018 FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.05.2018 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN I.A. NO. 853/2018 IN O.S. NO. 117/2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 08.06.2018 OF THE HONBLE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN I.A. NO. 662/2018 AND 853/2018 IN O.S. NO. 117/2018.
OP(C) NO. 935 OF 2020
6
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL C.M.A. NO. 17/2018 FILED BY THE DEFERENT BEFORE SUB COURT KARUNAGAPPALLY AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN I.A. NO. 662/2018 AND 853/2018 IN O.S. NO. 117/2018 DATED 25.06.2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, T.R. JAYALAKSHMI DATED 24.09.2018 IN O.S. NO. 117/2018. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.01.2020 IN C.M.A NO. 17/2018. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SUB JUDGE KARUNAGAPPALLY IN C.M.A. NO. 17/2018 IN I.A . NO. 662/2018 AND 853/2018 IN O.S.NO. 117/2018 DATED 25.01.2020.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the first appellate court order reversing the trial court’s mandatory injunction for restoring status quo?
Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 226 to direct maintenance of status quo?
RADHAKRISHNAN
PRIYA ASHOKAN
ARUN.P. ASHOKAN
ATHUN.P. ASHOKAN
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
