IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22978 of 2007(I) -------------------------- CMA.23/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.196/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHITHRANGATHAN, S/O KUNJUKRISHNAN, UTHIRAKULAM VEEDU, ANJENGO, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KARIYAKUZHI AYIRAVILLIKSHETHRAM. 2. MADHAVAN, S/O.PARAMU, KARIYAKUZHI AYIRAVALLI KSHETHRAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RESIDING AT VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, PORUNTHAMON, PULIMATHU VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22978/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PULIMATHU GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 11/3/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN I.A. 2265/03 IN O.S. NO.196/2003 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.APPEAL NO.23/2004 PRONOUNCED ON 31/10/2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.22978 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT No representation for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent is present and ready. I have gone through Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the learned Munsiff and the court of first appeal and I am convinced that there is no warrant at all for correcting those orders invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory jurisdiction is visitorial in nature and will be invoked only when it can be stated that the impugned orders are so unreasonable and can be described as perverse orders in the sense that such orders will not be written by anybody having reasonable training in law. The only relief, which the petitioner can aspire, is to have an early disposal of the suit which is stated to be pending. Even as I decline relief sought for in the writ petition, there will be a direction to the learned Munsiff, Attingal to try and dispose of O.S. No. 196/2003 at the earliest without being unduly WPC.No. 22978/2007 2 influenced by the findings and observations made in Exts.P3 and P4 and the circumstance that this court did not interfere with Exts.P3 and P4. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk