IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9477 of 2008(C) ------------------------- I.A.NO.5965/07 IN OS.706/2007 of PRL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- S.RAVEENDRAN NAIR @ NARAYANA PILLAI VINITHA BHAVAN, CHEMBARATHAN VILA AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON SRI.T.N.SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- VIJAYA LEKSHMI, LEKSHMI BHAVAN THODUPUZHA, CHEMBARATHAN VILA AVADUTHURA DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9477 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside Ext.P6 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara in I.A.No.5965/07 in O.S.No.706/07. It is an application filed for vacating the interim order of injunction on the ground that the mandate under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC has not been complied with by the petitioner. The plaintiff would contend that he has complied with the mandate and the court has perused the registered letter. It is observed that the same is seen stapled at 4 points in the top line and also held that there are also other staple marks appearing else where over the same. The court held that the materials were not sufficient to over rule a previous opening of the same. Even otherwise in the light of the decision reported in A.Venkata Subbiah Naidu vs. Chellappan and others (2000(7) SCC 695) non compliance of supply of copies under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC does not ipsofacto invalidate the order of injunction passed. But the Apex Court held that the result of such a non compliance would be that in case the WPC 9477/08 2 respondent disobeyed the injunction order, party in whose favour it was issued, could not be allowed to take advantage of the order. The Apex Court very clearly held that the order does not ipsofacto become illegal. Now on facts as well as on question of law it is seen that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merits and it is dismissed. Lastly, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that his client was laid up and he was not able to file the written statement in time. If a proper application with proper reasoning comes before the court, it may be considered sympathetically by the court. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl WPC 9477/08 3