IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 618 of 2010(O) ------------------------ CMA.30/2009 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. OS.439/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANATHANA DHARMA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ALAPPUZHA-1 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT S.MAHADEVA IYER, S/O.S.P.SANKARA IYER, AGED 70 YEARS, KAILAS, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- V.K.SASINDRANATHA KURUP, S/O.V.N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT AJAYA NIVAS, CHATHANADU, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.618 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records culminated in Exts. P8 and P9 and quash the same. ii) Issue an order staying all further proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P1 suit, till the disposal of the above writ petition. iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the nature and course of the proceedings. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S No.439 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. Suit is one for mandatory injunction, damages and also for a perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from forcibly evicting 1st respondent/plaintiff from the plaint schedule building. 1st defendant in the suit is stated to be the managing partner of a firm in which the plaintiff is a partner. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the plaint schedule building a printing press is being operated. After entering into a fraudulent arrangement with the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant landlord demolished a portion W.P.(C).No. 618 OF 2010 Page numbers of the building and removed the printing machinery from that building is the case of the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed in the suit. In the suit, admittedly, a status quo order was passed by the court. Later, plaintiff moved Ext.P6 application to permit him to bring in printing machinery for operating the printing press. After deputing an advocate commissioner and collecting a report, the learned Sub Judge allowed Ext.P6 application by Ext.P8 order negativing the objections raised by the defendant. Challenge raised against Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Sub Judge by way of an appeal was turned down by the learned District Judge vide Ext.P9 judgment. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P9 judgment is challenged in the writ petition by the petitioner/2nd defendant invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. W.P.(C).No. 618 OF 2010 Page numbers 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P8 order has been passed by the learned Sub Judge without taking note of and considering the previous status quo ordered on the injunction application moved by the plaintiff in the case. The learned District Judge has also expressed a view that since the machineries had already been brought in when the appeal was being heard, the petition has become infructuous. For that solitary reason, Ext.P8 order was not considered on its merits and the challenges raised to that order were not adverted or considered is the grievance raised. 5. Perusing Ext.P8 order and Ext.P9 judgment with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also other exhibits produced with the writ petition, I find no interference with the concurrent decision formed by the two inferior courts is warranted by exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court. The learned Sub Judge was satisfied from the report collected by deputing an advocate commissioner that a printing press is being operated in the plaint building and thereupon the request of the plaintiff to bring in printing W.P.(C).No. 618 OF 2010 Page numbers machinery was allowed by Ext.P8 order. That was confirmed by the learned District Judge in Ext.P9 judgment. Previously the court has passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo over, the subject matter does not prevent any of the parties in seeking permission of the court to bring in machineries for continuing the operation of the printing press carried on in the plaint property. Status quo order previously ordered is not any way affected when something is done with the sanction of the court and at the most the previous order would stand modified by the subsequent order. The learned District Judge has not examined on merits the correctness of Ext.P8 order with reference to the materials tendered also does not impress me since what has been granted by the learned Munsiff is a discretionary relief. When there was nothing to show that the grant of discretionary relief is based on perverse reasoning or based on no evidence, the learned District Judge was justified in refraining from having minute and microscopic examination of the correctness of Ext.P8 order with reference to the materials. In short, the challenges raised against Ext.P7 order and Ext.P8 judgment for invoking W.P.(C).No. 618 OF 2010 Page numbers the visitorial jurisdiction of this court are found to be meritless. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a petition is pending before the District Court for transfer of O.S No.545 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha to the Sub Court Alappuzha where O.S No.439 of 2008 is pending consideration. In the given facts of the case, I find, disposal of that transfer petition at the earliest is essential to have an expeditious disposal of the two suits to give a quietus to the whole controversy after a speedy trial. So much so, there will be a direction to the District Judge to dispose of the above transfer petition as expeditiously on production of a copy of this judgment, after hearing both sides. In case the transfer applied for is found allowable, the learned District Judge shall also give appropriate directions to the inferior court for expeditious disposal of the suits. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. Send a copy to the Sub Court and District Court,Alappuzha forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE