IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11543 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- (O.S. NO. 248/2006 OF ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA) PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. P.J.POULOSE, 8/231A, OLICKAL HOUSE, THENGODE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. 2. CARMEL EDUCATION TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.J.POULOSE, SUITE NO.30/663, ADOOR TOWERS, ADOOR. 3. CARMEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.J.POULOSE, PERUNADE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI. S.V. BALAKRISHNAN IYER SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. GRACY BABU THOMAS, PADINJARE VEEDU, KANNAMKODE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523. 2. JOSE THOMAS, OF DO. DO. 3. FRUDDY BABU THOMAS, DO. DO. 4. JUDDY BABU THOMAS, DO. DO. 5. RIJO THOMAS JOSE, DO. DO. 6. REENA JOSE THOMAS, DO. DO. WP(C) NO: 11543/2008 Y 7. ANNA JOSE @ RAJI JOSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI. T. KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 11543/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DT. 11/6/07 IN CMA NOS. 30/07 & 31/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL DIST. COURT, (ADHOC)-I, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15/6/2007 IN IA NOS. 683/07 & 684/07 IN CMA NOS. 30/07 & 31/07 OF THE ADDITIONAL DIST. COURT, (ADHOC-I), PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6/08/07 OF THIS COURT IN IA NO. 10781/2007 IN WPC NO. 20070/2007. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA NO. 950/07 IN CMA NO. 30/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIST. COURT, (FAST TRACK-I) PATHANAMTHITTA DT. 24/08/2007. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA NO. 1027/2007 IN CMA NO. 30/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIST. COURT (FAST TRACK-I) PATHANAMTHITTA DT. 17/09/07. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 12/12/2007 IN WPC NO. 36302/2007 PASSED BY THE COURT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE PETITION IA NO. 14/08 DT. 3/1/2008 IN CMA NO. 30/07 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIST. COURT, (FAST TRACK-1) PATHANAMTHITTA DT. 17/09/2007. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5/1/2008 IN IA NO. 950/07 IN CMA NO. 30/07 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIST. COURT, (FAST TRACK-I) PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5/1/08 IN IA NO. 14/08 IN CMA NO. 30/2007 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIST. COURT, (FAST TRACK-1) PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 22/3/08 IN IA NO. 402/2008 IN OS NO. 248/08 FILED BY THE PETITIOENRS BEFORE THE SUB JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE REMOVE THE COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMISSIONERSHIP DATED IN OS NO. 248/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. 10/3/2008. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 24/3/2008 IN WPC NO. 5083/2008 BY THIS COURT. WP(C) NO: 11543/2008 Y EXT.P13. COPY OF THE PETITION TO PROSECUTE THE RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATION OF ORDERS OF DIST. COURT AS IA NO. 440/2008 IN OS NO. 248/2008 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. 2/4/08. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE PETITION TO RECORD EVIDENCE AS IA NO. 418/2008 IN OS NO. 248/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. 28/3/2008. True copy tga M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 11543 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed with a prayer to quash Exts.P8 and P9 and direct the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta where Exts.P13 and P14 are pending to dispose it of and further a direction to the Subordinate Judge to dispose of those applications untramelled by the observations contained in Exts.P8 and P9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the observations made by the learned District Judge in Exts.P8 and P9 orders are liable to be expunged and the matter to be decided independently permitting the parties to put forward their respective contentions. 2. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent would contend such a direction is not necessary and further the orders in Exts.P8 and P9 being one passed under Order 39 Rule 2A, is appealable under the Code of W.P.C 11543 OF 2008 -:2:- Civil Procedure and therefore the Court need not give any such directions. 3. The apprehension of the petitioners in the writ petition is to the effect that if an order is passed in other applications before consideration of Exts.P13 and 14 it will affect them and on the contra respondent would contend the said prayer is only to delay the proceedings pending before the trial court with respect to the applications mentioned in my judgment in WPC 5083 and 8358/08. By the said order I have directed the trial court to consider Ext.P12 application and also Exts.P7 and P8 applications and I.A.404/08 pending before the said Court. I have also held that the Court shall have its own procedure to see that the order of the District Court which is in force now is obeyed by the parties in the letter and spirit and it shall pass appropriate orders for implementation of the same after considering the objections raised by the parties concerned. 4. Now, the grievance of the respondent is that the action of the writ petitioners herein has resulted in W.P.C 11543 OF 2008 -:3:- protraction of the petitions and it would also result in substantial injustice to the parties. It is seen from the history of this case that petitions after petitions and writ petition after writ petitions are filed before the Court by the parties. The question of considering the violation of injunction in an independent proceedings. The other petitions have also to be dealt with. The trial court is having the materials before it in the form of considered judgments by the District Judge in the CMAs' where directions and guidelines are given. I have earlier made clear in the writ petition that it is that order which is to be restored and implemented and if any person is aggrieved by the same such person has to approach the Court for the remedy of the grievance. It may not be possible or correct to hold that all these applications have to be jointly disposed of. There will be matters which requires urgent consideration and there will be matters which requires elaborate examination in the form of evidence and if all these petitions are interlinked the result will be delayed. It is for the Court where the matter is W.P.C 11543 OF 2008 -:4:- pending to decide the same. Therefore I leave it to the trial court to consider the applications in its own wisdom and whether disposal of one cannot be done without the disposal of the other are all matters that has to be considered by it and then proceed with the matter in accordance with law. So far as violation of injunction petition is concerned it is the order of the Court which is stated to be violated and if materials are forthcoming in the positive form and in the negative form by both sides the Court has to consider it independently and certainly it will look into the order passed by the District Judge to know about the intention for the reason that it was that Court which passed the order. But the decision making process has to be, by the evidence independently adduced and produced before Court and by analysis of the same. So I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. (1) The Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta is directed to consider the applications pending before the Court and it is given the discretion to decide whether they have to be W.P.C 11543 OF 2008 -:5:- disposed of jointly or disposed of one after the other taking into consideration the points involved in those applications. (2) While considering the application for violation of injunction the Court must primarily look into the spirit of the orders passed by the District Judge in the CMA and find out whether there has been any violation of that order. Certainly the Court can peruse the orders in Exts.P8 and P9 to understand the implication of the order to decide regarding the violation of interim injunction. The decision has to be taken only on the basis of the materials made available before the Court by both sides. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-