(1) Whether the judgment dated 25.03.2008 of this Court in W.P.(C)32951/2006 is per incurium against Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 and 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?

(2) Whether the said judgment is binding on these appellants?

(3) Whether the procedure established by law through Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 and 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has become a fait accompli before the court below, on account of the said judgment?

(4) Whether the decrees in O.S.No.16/1976, O.S.17/1976, and O.S.18/1976 of the court below are binding on the rights being claimed by these appellants over the properties in their possession, in respect of which obstructions were caused by them in effecting delivery in execution of those decrees?

(5) Has the court below bypassed or circumvented the procedure established by law through Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 and 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by adopting the procedure by which the court below has passed the impugned common order?

(6) Has the court below adjudicated the claims for the removal of obstructions caused by these appellants, as per law?

These are the main questions arise for consideration in these appeals!

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging common order dated 09.01.2009 passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri in E.A. Nos.498/2008, 525/2008 to 535/2008 and 537/2008 to 551/2008 in E.P.115/1998 in O.S.No.16/1976, E.A.Nos.499/2008, 552/2008, to 574/2008 and 576/2008, 577/2008 to 590/2008 in E.P.30/1999 in O.S.17/1976, and E.A.Nos.500/2008, 737/2008, 591/2008 to 614/2008 and E.A.616/2008 to 629/2008 in E.P.31/1999 in O.S.18/1976 by treating it as an appealable order passed by the court below within the meaning of Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short).

3. In 1960, the decree-holders filed a simple suit for injunction as O.S.No.292/1960 before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against trespass, as against the judgment-debtors as defendants. In 1961, the very same plaintiffs filed another similar suit as O.S.342/1961 before the said court seeking the very same relief; but with regard to some other properties situated in the neighbourhood of the properties covered by O.S.292/1960. Again, in the year 1962, alleging further attempts of trespass, the very same plaintiffs filed O.S.177/1962 seeking the very same relief; of course as stated above, with regard to another piece of land situated in the neighbourhood of the properties covered by both the aforesaid earlier suits. Subsequently, in the year 1976, the plaintiffs amended all the said suits by incorporating the relief of recovery of possession and consequential reliefs, by complaining of acts of trespass by the defendants. On account of the amendment, the valuation of the suits exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court and thereby the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri returned the plaints to be presented before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri.

4. The plaints were presented before the court below, where O.S.292/1960 was renumbered as O.S.16/1976, O.S.177/1962 was renumbered as O.S.17/1976 and O.S.342/1961 was renumbered as O.S.18/1976. Ultimately, all the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the relief of recovery of possession. At the same time, the defendants were granted the relief for the value of improvements made by them in the properties. Appeals were preferred by the defendants as well as the plaintiffs.

5. The appeals preferred by the defendants as A.S.Nos.58/83, 76/83 and 77/83 were dismissed. At the same time, the appeals preferred by the plaintiffs as A.S.Nos.66/83, 67/83 and 68/83 were allowed by setting aside the relief of the value of improvements granted to the defendants. The appeals filed by the plaintiffs relating to the claim for past profits were disallowed. In short, the learned Single Judge of this Court has, in fact,