IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1080 of 2011(O) ------------------------- CMA.3/2008 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG OS.60/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- SREE VEERABADRA DEVASWOM,CHERUVATHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,M.NARAYANAN, OFFICE AT SREE VEERA BADRA TEMPLE,CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- CHERUVATHUR SREE KANMBIKKATH MADAM IRUVARUM MOOVARUM KUNNINU THAZHATH LOKAR SANGHAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.P.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS,S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR,RESIDING AT KOVAL, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 313. BY ADVS. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD, SMT.O.K.SANTHA, SMT.S.SANTHY. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(C) NO.1080/2011 O APPENDIX P1: COPY OF I.A.NO.591/2008 IN O.S.60/08 SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT. P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S60/08. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6/3/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG IN I.A.NO.591/08 IN O.S.NO.60/08. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.3/2008 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, HOSDURG. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1080 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.60 of 2008 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Hosdurg. That is a suit for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the respondent and for consequential decree for prohibitory injunction. Respondent filed I.A.No.591 of 2008 for an order of temporary injunction which learned Munsiff granted. Petitioner challenged that order in C.M.A.No.3 of 2008. Learned Sub Judge, Hosdurg by judgment dated December 21, 2010 refused to interfere with the order of learned Munsiff. The said judgment and order are under challenge. 2. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the suit itself is not maintainable and respondent is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for, not to say that respondent has not made out a prima facie case, irreparable loss and injury or balance of convenience. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the suit itself is ripe for trial and is posted in the list on 22.07.2011. Since the suit itself could be disposed of, interference by this Court at this stage is not required, it is O.P(C).No.1080 of 2011 -: 2 :- argued. 3. There is an order of injunction against petitioner from 06.03.2008 onwards. The case itself is posted for trial in the list on 22.07.2011. There is no reason why I should go into contentious issues in this proceeding, at this stage when the case itself could be disposed of without delay. Parties can agitate their contentions before the learned Munsiff in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has a contention that the suit is not maintainable and is only to be dismissed. That contention also can be urged before the learned Munsiff in the course of trial. Resultantly without prejudice to the right of parties to raise their contentions before the learned Munsiff and directing learned Munsiff to expedite disposal of the suit, this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-