IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 1954 OF 2021 OS NO.678 OF 2014 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONER: VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIL KUMAR R.S., VELLARADA, PANACHAMOOD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT: THAPASI, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 63, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHANVEEDU, EDAKKODE, CHILAMBARA DESOM, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. BY ADVS. V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) NEERAJ NARAYAN V.JAYA RAGI R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021 -2- 2025:KER:22891 JUDGMENT (Dated this the 18 th day of March, 2025) The petitioner/defendant is a Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit as OS No.678 of 2014 for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from tarring any portion of the plaint schedule property and from altering the physical status of the plaint schedule property in any manner. In the suit, IA No.4225 of 2016 is filed for restoring the status quo ante under Section 151 CPC, as there was an IA for interim injunction as IA No.3514 of 2014; on 11.07.204, an interim injunction was passed against the defendant from tarring any portion of the plaint schedule property or altering the physical status until final disposal of the suit or until further order. On 15.06.2015, the respondent has filed an application for police protection, where an objection was OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021 -3- 2025:KER:22891 filed by the petitioner contending that they do not intend to carryout the alleged work of tarring or construction of culvert through the disputed property. The matter was challenged before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institution as CP No.888/2016, where the petitioner personally appeared and made an undertaking that they will not construct any road. 2. The respondent contends that violating the order of injunction passed in IA No.3514 of 2014, the concretion was done on the road and converted into a motorable road. Therefore, the respondent filed IA No.4225 of 2016 and as per order dated 16.08.2019, allowed the respondent to restore status quo ante as on 30.06.2014 noted by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1, C1(a) by removing the constructions noted in Ext.C2(a). 3. In order to execute the same, another IA was OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021 -4- 2025:KER:22891 filed as IA No.5945/2019 under Section 151 CPC, seeking a court officer for executing the order dated 16.08.2019 in IA No.4225/2016, which was allowed by the order dated 07.09.2021 and an Amin was deputed for implementing the order. The petitioner thereafter filed IA No.03/2021 (Ext.P5) to review the order in IA No.4225/2016, along with a petition to condone the delay of 122 days as IA No.04/2021 (Ext.P6). 4. The request of the petitioner is for a direction to the II Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, to pass orders in IA No.03/2021 and IA No.04/2021, before execution of orders in Exts.P3 and P4, including the question of maintainability of the suit. 5. This Court, while admitting the case on 29.10.2021, had passed an order of staying the operation of Exts.P3 and P4, for two weeks. OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021 -5- 2025:KER:22891 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in Ext.P3 is sought to be reviewed by Ext.P5 and till such time, Ext.P3 is to be kept in abeyance. 7. The counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the same and submits that when an injunction order was passed by the competent court, and the petitioner has disobeyed the same and constructed the road, Ext.P3 cannot be kept in abeyance. The court having gone through Exts.C1 and C2, came to a definite conclusion that the road was concreted after the injunction order is passed, and thereby the status quo ante was directed to be restored. 8. The counsel for the respondent further pointed out that in Ext.P5 itself in paragraphs 5 and 6, the petitioner stated that they do not have any connection with the road in question, and no money is spent for tarring or concreting the road. In such circumstances, the petitioner is OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021 -6- 2025:KER:22891 not an aggrieved person and the review is only to delay the execution of Ext.P3 order. Taking into consideration that Exts.P5 and P6 applications are pending before the court from 2021 onwards, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to take up Exts.P5 and P6 and dispose of the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021 -7- 2025:KER:22891 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1954/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONER DATED 18/11/2016 IN OA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO. 678/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2019 IN IA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO.678/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/09/2021 IN IA NO. 5945/2019 IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P5 COPY OF IA NO.03/2021 IN IA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P6 COPY OF IA NO.04/2021 IN IA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P7 COPY OF IA NO. 02/202 IN IA NO. 4225/2016 IN OS NO. 678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA