IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14788 of 2008(I) -------------------------- CMA.32/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.262/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM (IA 1717/2008) .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PADMANABHASWAMY TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COL. SASIDHARAN R., EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PADMANABHASWAMY TEMPLE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V. SURESH BABU, SOUBHAGYA, TC.8/1453/6, VADAKARA NAGAR, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.V.PRATHAPACHANDRAN SRI.P.PRAVEEN SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RAMASUBHRAMANIAN, S/O. SUBHRAMANIA IYER, TC.20/2587, S.S.STREET, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.14788/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.3.2008 IN I.A.NO.1717/2008 IN O.S.NO.262/2008 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.262/2008 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION DATED 14.3.2008 EXT.P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DATED 14.3.2008 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2008 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE AWARD OF SENA MEDAL (GALLANTRY) EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION ORDER DATED 7.6.2006 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.1.2008 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.4.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.9501/2008 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT OF THE MAHAZAR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. To Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14788 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd May, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.M.A.No.32/2008. C.M.A. was filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by learned Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in I.A.No.1717/2008 in O.S.No.262/2008. That was a petition filed by the plaintiff in the suit praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining 5th defendant from taking part in the day-to-day affairs of the temple or to involve in the administration of the temple in any manner what so ever. Under Ext.P1 order, learned Sub Judge granted an order of prohibitory injunction as prayed for until further orders. Plaintiff was also directed to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. Notice was also ordered to the respondents in the application and posted the case to 7.4.2008. The learned Additional District Judge under Ext.P5 judgment found that Sub Judge should not have granted an order without giving notice to the affected parties. Therefore, the order W.P.(C) No.14788/2008 2 passed by learned Sub Judge was modified to notice to the respondent and hearing, whereby, the ex-parte order of injunction granted by the learned Sub Judge was not confirmed. The learned Sub Judge was also directed to dispose the matter and pass final orders in I.A.No.1717/2008. 2. The apprehension of the petitioner is that by that order, only the first portion of Ext.P1, viz., order of prohibitory injunction was stayed and the further direction in Ext.P1 to 5th defendant was not stayed. I do not find any reasonable basis for such an apprehension. Ex-party order of injunction was passed only against 5th defendant without issuing notice. There was no order against petitioners. The learned Additional District Judge found that before passing the order, notice should have been issued. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that order of injunction granted by the learned Sub Judge in I.A.No.1717/2008 does not subsist, in view of Ext.P5 judgment. Clarifying that no order of injunction is subsisting, the petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.