IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13758 of 2007(K) -------------------------- CMA.65/2006 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUBHADRA AMMA, VADAKKADATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, VALACHAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE FROM CHITTOOR KEEZHEDATHU VEEDU, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. GOURI AMMA, CHUNAKKARAZHIKATHU VEEDU, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. BHAVANI AMMA, CHITTOOR KEEZHEDATHU VEEDU, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. KALYANI AMMA, KUNNATHU VEEDU, ELAMANNOOR (PO), ENADI MANGALAM FROM CHITTOOR KEEZHEDATHU VEEDU, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JANAKI AMMA, W/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, NJARAMMOOTTIL, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SURENDRAN NAIR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, NJARAMMOOTTIL, NADUVILA MURI KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. HARIDASAN NAIR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, NJARAMMOOTTIL, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. SUDEVAN NAIR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, NJARAMMOOTTIL, NADUVILA MURI,KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 5. THULASI, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, NJARAMMOOTTIL, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 6. SOMAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, NJARAMMOOTTIL, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 7. SUSEELA, D/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, NJARAMMOOTTIL, NADUVILA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Appendix:- Ext.P1 true copy of common order dt. 13-7-2006 on interim application issued by the learned Munsiff. Ext.P2 true copy of common order dt. 9-2-2007 in CMAs.63/06, 64/06 & 65/06 issued by the appellate court. (true copy) PS to Judge. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is Ext.P2 order of the lower appellate court interfering with Ext.P1 order of temporary injunction granted by the learned Munsiff to a certain extent in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The learned District Judge in Ext.P2 would confirm the order of injunction in respect of plaint A- schedule property, but would vacate the order of injunction as regards plaint B- schedule property. The grievance which is prominently voiced by the petitioners is that even though the respondents never sought for an injunction in respect of B-schedule property the learned District Judge apart from vacating the injunction which had been granted by the trial court went to the extent of granting injunction against them in respect of B-schedule. Though there is some technical attractiveness in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that what the learned District Judge is virtually done is to direct maintenance of status quo in respect of B- schedule property. This writ petition was admitted by this Court on 27-4-2007. But process for service of notice to respondents is remitted only today. The order of injunction passed by the District WP(C)N0. -2- Judge in respect of B-schedule property had been in currency since 9- 2-2007 till date. I have gone through Ext.P2. I do not think that a case is made out under Article 227 of the Constitution for interfering with Ext.P2. I dispose of the writ petition directing the learned Munsiff- Magistrate at Sasthamcotta (the trial court) to try and finally dispose of the suit at the earliest without being unduly influenced by the findings in Ext,.P2 and by his own findings in Ext.P1. The learned Munsiff will treat those findings as provisional and as having been entered only in the context of the interlocutory proceeding. Both sides are directed to maintain status quo as regards the plaint B-schedule property till the suit is finally disposed of. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) WP(C)N0. -3-