IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 11271 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ OS.333/2004 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. PADMAVALLI.T.V., D/O.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, AGED 49 YEARS, TEACHER, PADMALAYAM, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KAYANI DESOM, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERI TALUK. 2. REMADEVI.C., D/O.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, AGED 45 YEARS, TEACHER, PADMALAYAM, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KAYANI DESOM, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERI TALUK. 3. PADMANABHAN.C., S/O.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, AGED 40 YEARS, THROUGH P.A.HOLDER SRI.THELAKKADAN VEETTIL RAJAMOHANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 49 YEARS, PAZHASSI AMSOM,DESOM, P.O.URUVACHAL, THALASSERI TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.K.V.PAVITHRAN MR.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PERINGALI JANAKI AMMA, W/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR (LATE), AGED 71 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KUNNUMMALKANDY HOUSE, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KAYANI DESOM, P.O.KAYANI. 2. PERINGALI VIMALA, D/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR (LATE), THALASSERI TALUK, AGED 43 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KUNNUMMALKANDY HOUSE, PAZHASSI AMSOM,KAYANI DESOM, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERI TALUK. W.P.(C) NO.11271/2009 3. PERINGALI SAROJINI, D/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR (LATE), AGED 40 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KUNNUMMALKANDY HOUSE, PAZHASSI AMSOM,KAYANI DESOM, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERI TALUK. 4. PERINGALI LEELA, D/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR (LATE), AGED 37 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KUNNUMMALKANDY HOUSE, PAZHASSI AMSOM,KAYANI DESOM. 5. PERINGALI MANOHARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR (LATE), AGED 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KUNNUMMALKANDY HOUSE, PAZHASSI AMSOM, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERI TALUK. 6. CHODAN PUTHIYEDATH PADMANABHAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR, AGED 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KUNNUMMALKANDY HOUSE, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KAYANI DESOM, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERI TALUK. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.11271/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GIFT DEED. P2:- COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED ALONG WITH THE INJUNCTION PETITION. P3:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH THE INJUNCTION PETITION . P4:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT. P5:- COPY OF THE COUNTER IN INJUNCTION PETITION. P6:- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT. P7:- COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN INJUNCTION PETITION DTD. 15.7.05. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMA. DTD. 25.11.2008. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P. BHAVADASAN, J -------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11271 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality of Ext.P8 and P9 orders. 2. The writ petitioners are petitioners in I.A.2580/04 in O.S.333/04 before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparambu. I.A. was filed seeking order of temporary injunction against the respondent. By the order dated 15.7.2005 learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. The matter was carried in CMA.130/05before the District Court Thalassery. The District Court confirmed the order of the trial court. These two orders are challenged in this petition. 3. The writ petitioner has narrated in detail the facts in the petition. His main grievance is that by two impugned orders the court has decided the issue in the suit itself and W.P.(C).11271/09 2 nothing remains in the suit. The petitioner only prays that the trial court may be directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law and evidence adduced before the said court during trial. 4. Since both the courts found against the petitioner there is no scope for interference with those orders. As pointed out, it is seen that certain observations have been made by both the courts which may affect the petitioner's right in the suit which need to be safeguarded. 5. In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible at any rate within nine months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, untrammelled by the observations made by both the courts while disposing of the interlocutory application. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. sou.