IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4582 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OS.9/2008 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.KUNHIBI, W/O.JANAB, C.P.KUNHAMMED BARAMI, VALIYAKAM, THANGAL'S ROAD IN NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANASARUL ISLAM PHITHEYLEE MIL AHAM ALIAS THE MUHAMADAN EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY K.V.KUNHAMMED KOYA RESIDING AT NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.I.ALIKOYA HAJEE, TRUSTEE OF THE IST PETITIONER. 3. K.P.UMMER BARAMI, S/O. P.N.ABDUL RAHIMAN BARAMI, TURSTEE, TRUSTEE OF THE IST PETITIONER, RESIDING AT CONVENT ROAD, CALICUT. 4. K.V.MAMMED KOYA, S/O. P.N.AHAMMED KOYA HAJI, TRUSTEE OF THE IST PETITIONER, RESIDING AT THIRUVANNUR, CALICUT. 5. THE KERALA WAKF BOARD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4582 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner is the first respondent in I.A.No.1123 of 2008 in O.S.No.9 of 2008. The main allegation in the plaint is that the plaint schedule property is a Wakf property and the petitioner herein has no right to continue in the said property. Hence along with the declaration, eviction was also sought for. Pending consideration of the main matter, an interlocutory application was also filed seeking to restrain the petitioner herein from alienating the property. By the impugned order, Ext.P4, the court below restrained the petitioner herein from alienating the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Hence this writ petition. 2. Being an interlocutory order and having due regard to the nature of the relief sought for, it cannot be said that W.P.(C) No.4582/2009 2 the direction not to alienate the property of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings is in any way illegal, necessitating an interference in the interlocutory proceedings. However, according to the petitioner, there is a pathway through the plaint schedule property and according to him, he has got his own properties with the right to use the said pathway and the present order may affect his right to use the pathway. Considering the facts of this case, the writ petition is disposed of holding that this order will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate clarification from the court below, at the time of sale of her property. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj.