OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:28312 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2024 IN OS NO.254 OF 2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD PETITIONER: SUDARSANAPURAM DEVASWOM OWNED PUNNASSERY KARINGAMON ILLAM,ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY PRESENT KARNAVAR, SUBRAMANYAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANYAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PIN - 690514 BY ADVS. M.R.MINI VINOD RAVINDRANATH MEENA.A. ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K. NIVEDHITHA PREM.V RESPONDENTS: 1 RAJALAKSHMI PILLAI AGED 93 YEARS D/O BHARATHI PILLAI, PARASWARATHU VEETTIL, KARICHAL MURI, PAYIPPAD PO, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514 2 VIJAYAKRISHNAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O RAMAN PILLAI, PARAMESWARATHU VEETTIL, KARICHAL MURI, PAYIPPAD PO, VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514 OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:28312 BY ADVS. M.R.ARUNKUMAR P.SHAMMI NAVAS(K/887/2001) MINI V.MENON(K/25/1998) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:28312 JUDGMENT (Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025) The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in OS No.254 of 2023 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Harippad. Respondents are the plaintiff. The suit is filed for declaration and for consequential injunction. 2. The plaintiff contended that they had a right of prescriptive easement through the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is the temple compound of the 1st defendant. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd defendant has obstructed the way to their house, hence the suit was filed. 3. The defendant entered an appearance and filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. There was an earlier suit as OS No.249 of 2023, filed by the 1st defendant in the present suit against the petitioner herein for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner, the defendants therein from using the temple compound as a way to their property. 4. In both suits, applications for temporary injunction were filed as IA No.1 of 2023. The trial court heard both the OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:28312 applications, and a common order is passed as Ext.P3. By Ext.P3, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the plaint ‘C’ schedule way as reported by the advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 Commissioner report and a rough sketch until the disposal of the suit. The respondents herein filed CMA No.3 of 2024 and filed an application as IA No.1 of 2024 for stay of the operation of the order in IA 1 of 2023 in OS 254 of 2023. On 18.01.2024, the lower appellate court had stayed the impugned order and issued notice. 5. During the pendency of the CMA, a gate was installed, and thereafter the I.A.No.9 of 2024 was filed for an interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the gate placed on the west of the plaint ‘C’ schedule pathway obstructing the ‘C’ schedule pathway. Though an objection was filed to the said application, the Court below by Ext.P8 directed to restore the status quo as per C1 commission report dated 27.07.2023 failing which the plaintiff can execute the same through the court. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the gate was put up at the time when the OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:28312 order in I.A No.1 of 2024 in CMA 3 of 2024 was in force, whereby the impugned order directing the status quo was stayed. It is also undertaken before this court that they will not close the gate or block the way, thereby the petitioner will be permitted to use the way as it is already found by the commissioner in Ext.C1(a) report. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the gate was installed, he is obstructed by the respondents in using the only way to his house, which is reported by the commissioner. So, unless and until the gate is removed, the obstruction will still continue. Moreover, the prosecution petition is pending. Therefore, the interim mandatory injunction has to be implemented and the gate has to be removed. When the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that he will not close the gate or block the way unless he obtains a favourable order from this court, is as good as as an injunction order. The ground raised in this original petition is extracted as follows; “A) Petitioner submits that he has not violated the orders of the trial court. The gate was put up at a time when the order of stay passed by the appellate court was in force. OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:28312 By putting up the gate, the alleged way was not at all blocked. Petitioner never had any intention to block the alleged way. As long as the order passed by the court is in force, petitioner will not do anything against the spirit of the order. Petitioner undertakes that he will not close the gate or blocked the way unless he gets a favourable order from the court. As long as the order passed by the court is in force, respondents herein can use the alleged way for entry to their property without any interference from the petitioner”. 8. Therefore, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner herein, I am of the opinion that the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the plaint “C” schedule as reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 report till the disposal of the suit. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE saap OP(C) NO. 2480 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:28312 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2480/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.254/2023 DATED 01.07.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. NO.254/2023 DATED 03.09.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 07.12.2023 IN I.A. NO.1/2023 IN O.S. 249/2023 AND I.A. NO.1/2023 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 IN I.A. NO.1/2024 IN C.M.A. 3/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE-1, MAVELIKKARA Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.9/2024 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD, DATED NIL Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.09.2024 IN I.A. NO.9/2024 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 25.07.2023 IN I.A. NO.2/2023 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN DATED 27.07.2023 IN I.A. NO.2/2023 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD Exhibit P7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN DATED 02.09.2024 IN I.A. NO.7/2023 IN O.S. NO.254/2023, MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2024 IN I.A. NO.9/2024 IN O.S. NO.254 /2023 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD //True copy//PA to Judge