IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).NO. 15757 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- (AGAINST I.A.. NO.4195 OF 2009 IN OS.1373/2009 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR & C.M.A. NO.150 OF 2009, FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.G.K.MENON, S/O. N.M.MENON, RESIDING AT PARAKKATTIL LANE, PATHIRAICKL, TRICHUR (NOW RESIDING IN 5F, NEETHY APARTMENTS PADPERGANG, NEW DELHI-110092. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ K.JOJU, PROPRIETOR, AKSHAYA PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS, THOTTEKKATTU LANE, POONKUNNAM DESOM, TRICHUR-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.15757 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by some of the observations and findings in the order on I.A. No.4195 of 2009 in O.S. No.1373 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff and the judgment in C.M.A. No.150 of 2009 of Additional District Court-I, Thrissur. According to the petitioner those observations and findings may have a great bearing on the ultimate disposal of the suits itself. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of a Villa in the property which he subsequently purchased from the prior owner and as per the agreement respondent was to complete construction of the Villa within 28 weeks from the date of agreement. The cost of construction was to be paid to the respondent at different phases of construction of the Villa. Accordingly petitioner has already paid Rs.20,23,000/- but at the stipulated time construction reached only the lintel level. It is also the contention of the petitioner that construction violated the building rules. In the circumstances petitioner issued notice to the respondent cancelling the agreement and entrusted the remaining W.P(C) No.15757 of 2010 -: 2 :- part of construction work to another contractor. Apprehending that the respondent may obstruct further construction he filed the suits for injunction and sought for temporary injunction. Respondent resisted the suit contending that it is not as if the petitioner had purchased the property from the prior owner but it was at the instance of the respondent that the property was purchased. It is also the contention of respondent that while fixing the time for completion of construction it was stipulated that delay due to any stay from the local authority, Government or court will be excluded. According to the respondent as instructed by the petitioner some alterations were made in the construction and that invited order from the local authority to stop the construction. It is also the contention of respondent that even if it is assumed that the agreement was violated petitioner had no right to entrust remaining construction to a third party and the entire construction was to be completed as per the direction of Project Engineer of the respondent. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed I.A. No.4195 of 2009 and that has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Thrissur in C.M.A. No.150 of 2009. Grievance of the petitioner is that some of the observations and findings made by W.P(C) No.15757 of 2010 -: 3 :- the courts below stairs at the petitioner in that it would have a bearing on the ultimate disposal of the present suit and the connected suit. The said observations and findings are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances what is required in this proceeding is only to direct the trial court to dispose of the suits untrammelled by the observations and findings contained in the impugned order and judgment. It is directed that the observations and findings in the order on I.A. No.4195 of 2009 and judgment in C.M.A. No.150 of 2009 will be confined to the disposal of those proceedings. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv