IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11310 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MACTA FEDERATION OF FILM EMPLOYEES TRADE UNIONS IN MALAYALAM,A FEDERATION REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE UNIONS ACT OF 1926,HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT 35/2986A,PALLIPRATHIKSHINA VAZHY PALLINADA,THAMMANAM RD,PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-682025 REP.ITS VICE PRESIDENT SRI.MUHAMMED RAFEEQ.K.E. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. ALL INDIA FILM EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION, HAVING ITS REG.OFFICE AT CARE FWICE,113,NEW LINK RD,ANDHERI(W) MUMBAI-400053,REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.DHARMESH TIWARI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. 2. SRI.DHARMESH TIWARI,AGED AND FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,PRESIDENT,ALL INDIA FILM EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION, REG.OFFICE CARE FWICE 113, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI(W) MUMBAI-400053. 3. S.VIJAYAN, AGED AND FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, FORMER GENERAL SECRETARY, ALL INDIA FILM EMPLOYESS CONFEDERATION REG. OFFICE CARE FWICE 113, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI(W) MUMBAI 400053. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11310 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th 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 assails Ext.P1 order of the Sub Court, Ernakulam and also for interim injunction against implementation of Ext.P6 order. 2. The petitioner had instituted O.S.189/10 before the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in the suit. Along with the suit the petitioner moved I.A.2275/10 seeking interim injunction against the respondent. The court below chose it fit to issue notice and hear the matter after objections are received. Aggrieved by the said act of the court below the petitioner approached this court. WPC.11310/10 2 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the court below has not exercised discretion taking into consideration of the well accepted principle while dealing with the application for interim injunction. The court was also not justified in issuing notice. It is pointed out that the act of the court in issuing notice caused irreparable loss to the petitioner. It is prayed that this court may in its supervisory jurisdiction exercise its powers to provide interim relief to the petitioner as prayed for in this suit. 4. The main attack is against Ext.P6. The petitioner contended that the meeting pursuant to Ex.P6 which is convened by the respondents, may be detrimental to the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that if any decision is taken in that meeting, it may go against the petitioner and that will have drastic consequences. 5. Whatever that be, one cannot omit to note that the main subject matter, Ext.P6 is of the year 2008 and it is true WPC.11310/10 3 that petitioner has mentioned it in the affidavit as well as plaint the reason for the long delay in approaching the court. One cannot forget the fact that there was an earlier suit, which was withdrawn as not pressed. Of course the petitioner's challenge is on the ground of fraud. Whatever be that, the order in this suit is of the year 2008. Two years have elapsed. It is now the petitioner has sought for reliefs against that order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invoked principles of natural justice, equity, Common law, Club law in support of his contentions. Those are matters which have to be considered by lower court which is seized of the matter. The lower court after going through the records chose it fit to issue notice. The court below must have formed the opinion that immediate orders are not necessary to safe guard interest of the petitioner. 7. However, if the petitioner files a petition for WPC.11310/10 4 advancing the case and hearing of the interlocutory application I.A.2275/10, the court below may take up the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.