IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26556 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- IN IA 1953/06 IN OS.301/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A. ASARAFUDHEEN, S/O.AHAMED KABEER, PALAM BAZAAR, PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, AHAMED KABEER, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT PALAM BAZAAR, PUDUNAGARAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.O.K.SANTHA SMT.P.L.MARY TREASA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ R.A.KUTHABDEEN, S/O.ABDUL RAZACK, RESIDING AT MANNUVATARAM, PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26556 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue appropriate writ, direction, or order setting aside Exts.P1 and P2. ii) Allow I.A No.1953/2006 in O.S No.301/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. iii) issue such other writ, direction or order as may be prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.301 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondent / judgment debtor from trespassing upon the plaint W.P.(C).No.25556 OF 2009 Page numbers schedule property, and from interfering with the possession and enjoyment over the same by the petitioner / plaintiff. With the suit, the petitioner / plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit. The respondent / defendant filed objection to that application. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides dismissed that application against which petitioner preferred an appeal as C.M.A No.1116/2006 before the District Court, Palakkad. The learned District Judge after hearing both sides concurring with the views formed by the learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal. Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the courts below the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff for the aforementioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.25556 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. Perusing Ext.P1 order passed by the learned Sub Judge and Ext.P2 judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, I find, there is no impropriety or illegality in such order / judgment warranting interference by exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this court. Having regard to the relief claimed in the suit, a decree of injunction, I find, an expeditious disposal of the suit after trial is necessary to meet the ends of justice. So much so, I direct the learned Sub Judge to dispose the suit after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective cases, as W.P.(C).No.25556 OF 2009 Page numbers expeditiously as possible, untrammeled by any of the observations and findings made in its Ext.P1 order or Ext.P2 judgment rendered by the learned District Judge. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv