IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 3037 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ IA 871/2011 IN OS.147/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER ------------------- SAFIYULLA,S/O.MUHAMMED NOOHU, AL-AMAL,ODAYAM,VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ A.NAIZAM,S/O.ABDUL KAREEM,PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMKULAM,CHILAKKOOR,VARKALA-695141. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP(C) NO.3037/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PROFORMA C- FORM PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12.4.2011 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA A 871/2011 IN OS.147/2011. P3:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 1.5.2010 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29.8.2011 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP(RC) 2867/2011. P5:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA IN IA. NO.871/2011 IN OS. 147/2011. P6:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA IN OS. 147/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3037 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.147 of 2011 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Varkala. That is a suit filed by the respondent for a decree for prohibitory injunction against forcible eviction from the suit property and the structure therein. By Ext.P2, order respondent has obtained an interim order of injunction against petitioner forcibly evicting the respondent. Petitioner preferred Ext.P5, counter affidavit in June, 2011 with request to vacate the order of injunction. Grievance of petitioner is that the said application has not been disposed of till now. Hence it is requested that a direction may be given to the learned Munsiff to dispose of the application. 2. Learned counsel submitted that respondent is not a tenant of the building in question and that as per the agreement respondent was permitted to construct a temporary shed for running a restaurant and that period has already expired. Hence, respondent cannot continue in occupation of the property and obtain an order of injunction, it is contended. O.P(C).No.3037 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Without understanding the volume of work and priority for disposal of older cases, I am not inclined to think that I must issue a direction for time bound disposal of the application. But, learned Munsiff should bear in mind the statutory mandate contained in Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the time within which application for injunction is to be disposed of and make every endeavour to dispose of the application as early as possible if the steps are complete and there is no legal impediment in dong so. With the above direction this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-