IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20916 of 2008(M) -------------------------- CMA.190/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.67/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. PRESIDENT, KOTTIYATTU MUKKU MAHAVISHNU KSHETHRA AYYAPPA SANGHAM, MANGATTU DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. SECRETARY DO..DO.. 3. TREASURER DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MANGATT KETTIYATTMUKKU SREE MAHAVISHNU KSHETHRA COMMITTEE REP.BY PRESIDENT V.T. ASOKAN, S/O. THUPRAN, VELLAKADA HOUSE, WEST MANGADU DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. SECRETARY M.T. SASI, MATHIYADU HOUSE, PORKULAM DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 20916 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendants in O.S.67 of 2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Respondents are plaintiffs. Respondents filed I.A 275 of 2005, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil procedure, for an order of temporary injunction restraining petitioners from using the title “Kottiyattumukku Sree Mahavishnu Kshethram” for any purpose. Under Ext.P1 order, learned Munsiff vacated the order of temporary injunction, which was originally granted exparte. Respondents challenged that order before District Judge, Thrissur in CMA 190 of 2005. Learned Additional District Judge, on reappreciating the materials found that respondents have established a prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in their favour and if the order of injunction is granted, irreparable injury will be caused. Therefore learned District Judge set aside the order vacating the order of temporary injunction originally granted and made the original order granted by Munsiff, absolute till disposal of the suit. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution WP(C) 20916/2008 2 of India. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners vehemently argued that learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the materials and should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by learned Munsiff and therefore the order is to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that even if it is not possible to interfere with Ext.P2 order, learned Munsiff may be directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the next `vilakku' in Vrichikam(November). 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P2 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference. Learned Additional District Judge considered the prima facie case and found that respondents have established a prima facie case. It was also found that balance of convenience is in favour of respondents and unless an order of injunction is granted, irreparable injury will be caused. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 order cannot be interfered in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit, as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by any observation in WP(C) 20916/2008 3 Ext.P1 or P2 orders. If steps are over, learned Munsiff to dispose the suit before the next Vrichikam(November). M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-