IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33895 of 2005(I) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 819 2005 IN CMA.49/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR OS.310/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. M.J.JOHNSON, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, WIRE ROPES JUNCTION, EDATHALA P.O. PUKKATTUPADY 683 561. 2. V.O.VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE VARKEY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.CHERUPUSHPAM OFFSET, WIRE ROPES JUNCTION, EDATHALA P.O. PUKKATTUPADY 683 561, NOW RESIDING AT OOTANCHERRY HOUSE, THAMARACHAL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O. ERNAKULAM 683 562. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.JIJO THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DR.BABY KRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AISWARYA HOSPITAL, WIRE ROPES JUNCTION, EDATHALA P.O. PUKKATTUPADY 683 561. 2. DR.REMA BABY, W/O.DR.BABY KRISHNAN, AISWARYA HOSPITAL, WIRE ROPES JUNCTION, EDATHALA P.O. PUKKATTUPADY 683 561. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.HARIDAS SRI.P.N.SASIDHARAN SRI.SAMSON THOMAS DAVIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 33895/2005(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.310/2005. P2: COPY OF INJUNCTION APPLICATION, I.A. 1520/2005. P3: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO I.A. 1520/2005. P4: COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND SKETCH IN I.A. 1522/2005. P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A. 1522/2005 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P6: COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS (4 NOS) P7: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 16/09/2004 ISSUED BY EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P8: COPY OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING PLAN-PROPOSED NEW BLOCK PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P9: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08/08/2005 IN WPC .23506/2005 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P10: COPY OF ORDER DATED 02/08/2005 IN I.A.NO.1520/2005 IN O.S.NO.310/2005. P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/10/2005 IN C.M.A.NO.49/2005 OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARUR. P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/10/2005 IN WRIT PETITON NO.30258/2005. P13: COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/11/2005 IN I.A.NO.16468/2005 IN THE ABOVE WRIT PEITION.. P14: COPY OF REVIEW PETITION I.A.NO.819/2005 HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULAM, NORTH PARUR. P15: COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/11/2005 IN I.A.(REVIEW)NO.819/2005 IN CMA 49/2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NORTH PARUR. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.33895 OF 2005 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in O.S.No.310/2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Aluva are the petitioners herein. Along with the suit an interlocutory application, namely, I.A.No.1520/2005, was filed for an interim injunction. After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the application for interim injunction. Plaintiffs challenged the said order in C.M.A.No.49/2005. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the lower court with costs through out. Ext.P11 is the judgment in the CMA, which was challenged by the plaintiffs in W.P.(C).No.30258/2005. This Court dismissed the writ petition directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to file a review petition before the Appropriate Court. Ext.P12 is the judgment in the said writ petition. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P12, the plaintiffs filed a review petition before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the application for review. Ext.P15 is the said order, -2- WP(C).No.33895/2005 which is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. This Court by interim order dated 6/12/2005 ordered status quo for five weeks. Subsequently it was extended until further orders. The suit is of the year 2005. The interim injunction sought for by the plaintiffs has not been granted by the trial court or the Lower Appellate Court. This Court by an interim order directed all the parties to maintain status quo. 3. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the trial court to hear and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the trial court to hear and dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The interim order of status quo passed by this Court shall continue till the disposal of the suit. Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. \ HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.