IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25178 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- (O.S. NO. 173/2008 & 176/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.) ........ PETITIONER: -------------------- MANIYAMMA, AGED 87 YEARS, W/O. LATE GOVINDAN, KOLASSERIL HOUSE, IRUTTUKANAM, ANVIRATTY VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT: ---------------------- M/S. VIYYAT POWER PRIVATE LTD., SP 20/641, VIYYAT KAUSTHUBHAM, KARIYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING ITS PROJECT OFFICE AT ADIMALY, NEAR VISWADEEPTHI SCHOOL , ADIMALI, IDUKKI REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P. DAMODARAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 25178 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.176 of 2008 on the file of Munsiff Court, Devikulam. An exparte order to maintain status quo, was passed by the learned Munsiff. Respondent according to the petitioner, instead of approaching the Munsiff Court, filed CMA 391 of 2008 before District Court, Thodupuzha and the learned District Judge passed an order on 16.8.2008 in I.A.511 of 2008 and 513 of 2008 granting interim stay and appointing a commission. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 16.8.2008 passed by the learned District Judge and also for a direction to keep in abeyance the proceedings in CMA 39 of 2008 till the disposal of OA 176 of 2008. 2. On hearing the learned counsel I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. True, when an exparte order was granted by the trial Court, the proper course would have been for the respondent to WP(C)25178/08 2 appear before that Court and get the order vacated. But when the respondent, instead of approaching the trial Court and approached the District Court and District Court passed an order, the remedy of the petitioner is to appear before the District Court and get that order vacated and if that CMA is not maintainable seek an order for dismissal of the CMA. It is not for this Court now to interfere in that order. Petitioner is at liberty to approach District Judge and seek an order either to vacate the order passed on 16.8.2008 or to modify that order. If petitioner files an application before learned District Judge to advance I.A. 511 of 2008 and 513 of 2008, the District Judge shall advance the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the same day, if feasible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-