IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAYOF OCTOBER 2017/12TH ASWINA, 1939 OP(C).No. 1464 of 2015 (O) [CASE NUMBER] IN A.S.NO. 8/2015 IS SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM PETITIONER(S) : * 1. SULAIMAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED MUSALIYAR, KOTTILUNGAL HOUSE, MELAZHIYAM DESOM, ANAKKARA AMSOM AND POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (DIED) * ADDITIONAL P2 TO P7 IMPLEADED 2. JAMEELA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. LATE SULAIMAN. 3. UMAIRA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. LATE SULAIMAN. 4. SUFIRA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. LATE SULAIMAN. 5. SAFOORA, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. LATE SULAIMAN. 6. MUNEERA, AGED 22 YEARS, W/O. LATE SULAIMAN. 7. MAJIDA NASRIN, AGED 18 YEARS, W/O. LATE SULAIMAN. * ADDITIONAL P2 TO P7 IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED SOLE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 22.08.2017 IN I.A.NO. 1434 OF 2017. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S) : 1. GANESH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SOUDAMINI AMMA, POOKOTTUPALLIYALIL, MELAZHIYAM DESOM, ANAKKARA AMSOM AND POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PIN: 679 551. 2. KADEEJA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.LATE IBRAHIM HAJI, PALATHINKALMAMPATTA VALAPPIL, MELAZHIYAM DESOM, ANAKKARA AMSOM AND POST, PIN- 679 551. 2/- 2 OP(C).No. 1464 of 2015 (O) 3. SHAJIL @ SHAJI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE IBRAHIM HAJI, PALATHINKALMAMPATTA VALAPPIL, MELAZHIYAM DESOM, ANAKKARA AMSOM AND POST, PIN: 679 551. 4. MANSOORA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.LATE IBRAHIM HAJI, PALATHINKALMAMPATTA VALAPPIL, MELAZHIYAM DESOM, ANAKKARA AMSOM AND POST, PIN: 679 551. 5. NASIRA @ NASEERA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.LATE IBRAHIM HAJI, PALATHINKALMAMPATTA VALAPPIL, MELAZHIYAM DESOM, ANAKKARA AMSOM AND POST, PIN: 679 551. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. OP(C).No. 1464 of 2015 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] OF MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI DT.20.02.2014. P2 PHOTOCOPY OF DECREE IN [CASE NUMBER] OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT PATTAMBI DT.20-12-2014 ALONG WITH C1 & C2. P3 PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL MEMO OF AS NO.8/2015 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. P4 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION [CASE NUMBER] IN [SECTION] OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM(PHOTOCOPY) P5 PHOTO COPY OF OBJECTION FILED IN [CASE NUMBER] IN [SECTION] OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER] IN [SECTION] OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 23.01.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this, the 04th day of October, 2017. J U D G M E N T
This original petition arises out of the order dated 23.01.2015 of the Sub Court, Ottapalam, in [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER]. The said appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Pattambi, in [CASE NUMBER]. In the said appeal, an application for interim injunction was made as [CASE NUMBER], wherein the lower appellate court granted an order to maintain status quo. The said order is under challenge in this original petition. The copy of the said order is placed on record as Ext.P6.
2. On 24.06.2015, this Court issued notice before admission to respondents.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. In Ext.P6 order, which is sought to be challenged in this original petition, the lower appellate court, after considering the rival contentions, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of decree, till disposal of that appeal. The reasoning of the lower appellate court, as contained in Para.5 of Ext.P6 order reads thus;
"5. As per the impugned judgment and decree the plaintiff has been granted a prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction. According to the petitioner, taking advantage of the decree, the plaintiffs are trying to block the way available on the northern side. The judgment and decree are under challenge. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is necessary to direct the parties to maintain the status quo as on the date of the decree till the disposal of the appeal.
In the result, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of the decree till the disposal of this appeal."
5. In [PRECEDENT] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under [SECTION] of the [ACT], held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under [SECTION] is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.
6. In [PRECEDENT] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT], this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principle of law.
7. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, I find absolutely no grounds to interfere with reasoning of the lower appellate court in Ext.P6 order, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on the date of the decree in [CASE NUMBER], till disposal of that appeal.
In such circumstances, this original petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2015, I deem it appropriate to direct the Sub Court, Ottapalam, to dispose of [CASE NUMBER], as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment.
[ENTITY], JUDGE Bb/05/10/2017 [True copy] P.A to Judge