IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22495 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2009 IN IA-4538/2009 IN CMA.72/2009 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-PAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.SCREENARY MEDIA PVT.LTD., HAVING IT'S REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4B1, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 683 109, REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR MARKETING MR.REJU JOY. BY MR.T.KRISHNANUNNI,SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS:RESPONDENTS:DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.BRAND AND MORE MAPP 63/795, RAHMAN'S SEBASTIAN ROAD, JUDGES AVENUE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017, REPRESENTED BY IT'S BRANCH HEAD, MRS.C.A.RAJANI. 2. DR.HABEEB RAHMAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT RAHMAN'S SEBASTIAN ROAD, JUDGES AVENUE, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017. R1 BY ADV.MR.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22495/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS DTD. 3/3/2009. P2: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 8/04/2009 FROM THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. P3: LETTER DTD. 16/04/2009 FROM THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 27/04/2009 FROM THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURES THEREIN. P5: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 4/05/2009 FROM THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5/5/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. P7: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 5/5/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONERS. P8: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 6/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 16/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 16/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. P11: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 30/06/2009 IN I.A.NO.3739/09 IN OS.614/09. P12: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 31/07/2009 IN CMA NO.72/09 DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22495 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records and proceedings of the Lower Appellate Court in relation to Exhibit P12 order and after scrutiny thereof to set aside the said order dated 31.7.2009 as being wrong, absolutely without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.614 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and respondent is the defendant. The parties entered into an agreement on the terms and conditions stipulated thereunder by which the petitioner was allowed to put up gantries for placing advertisement boards at three important junctions in Ernakulam Town, namely, Kalamassery, Vyttila and Madhava Pharmacy. However, later, disputes arose between the parties reference to which is not necessary for disposal of this writ petition. Plaintiff in the suit sought for a decree of injunction W.P.(C).No.22495 of 2009 - O 2 to restrain the defendant from tampering and interfering with the gantries put up both at Kalamassery and Madhava Pharmacy junctions. With the suit, plaintiff moved an interlocutory application seeking identical relief. The defendant resisted the application by filing objections. After hearing both sides the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P11 order allowing the interim injunction applied for. Challenging the correctness of Ext.P11 order the defendant filed an appeal as C.M.A.No.72 of 2009 before the District Court, Ernakulam, in which they also moved an application to keep in abeyance the order challenged in the appeal. That application was disposed by the learned District Judge after hearing both sides, directing the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit to pay an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition by the respondent in the appeal (plaintiff in the suit) invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts W.P.(C).No.22495 of 2009 - O 3 and circumstances presented, I find that the interests of justice demand an early disposal of the C.M.A. itself rather than going into the merit of Ext.P11 order challenged in the writ petition. At the time of hearing, it is brought to my notice that the petitioner/plaintiff is bound to pay, under the terms of agreement, the sum fixed every quarter and now such sums are defaulted for the quarter commencing from 1.6.2009 and 1.9.2009. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no deliberate default in making payment. But, on account of the disputes cropping between the parties with reference to fulfillment of the terms covered by the agreement, a proper adjudication as to what amount actually is due for payment has to be resolved. Whatever that be, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved and also the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs to the respondent, which shall be adjusted in the amount due under the terms of the agreement. I am not expressing any opinion as to how the amount has to be adjusted which has to be resolved by W.P.(C).No.22495 of 2009 - O 4 the parties in proper proceedings if need be. Such payment as directed above shall be made by way of a crossed cheque or by a demand draft handing it over to the respondent or the counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court within a period of ten days. The learned District Judge is directed to hear and dispose of the C.M.Appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that none of the observations made by this Court in the judgment shall have any reflection or bearing in the disposal of the appeal on its merits or the suit pending before the court below. Writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-