IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18876 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------------- (I.A.NO.1534 OF 2006 IN O.S.117 OF 2006 OF SUB COURT,PALA) PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, 58 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, KUNJANIYAN PILAI, PARACKAL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA-2, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. P.DIVAKARAN NAIR, 71 YEARS, S/O.P.G.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, PUTHIYATHU NADACKAL PO., ERATTUPETTA, TEEKOY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 3. M.N.DIVAKARAN NAIR, 73 YEARS, S/O.P.G.NARAYANA PILAI, MANJAPPALLIL (PUTHIYATHU), THALAPPALAM KARA, PLASSANAL PO., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 4. RAGHAVAN NAIR, 64 YEARS, S/O.PAPPIYAMMA, JOTHIS HOUSE, VATTUKULAM PO., KADAPOOR, KANAKKARI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 5. K.P.GOPINATHAN NAIR, 58 YEARS, S/O.MEENAKSHIYAMMA, KARAMKANATH HOUSE, KAVUN BHAGAM PO., THEKKETHUKAVALA VIA., CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALY TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.RAMAPRASAD UNNI.T. SRI.PREM NAVAZ SMT. SMITHA GEORGE Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.18876/2008 RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. TEEKOY RUBBERS (INDIA) LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.THOMAS JOSEPH, TEEKOY RUBBERS (INDIA)LTD., MAIN ROAD, PALA, PIN.686 575, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THOMAS JOSEPH, KOTTAKAPPALLY HOUSE, S/O.LATE GEORGE THOMAS, MEVADA VILLAGE, PALA PO., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. JOHN THOMAS, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, RESIDING AT KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA PO., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. M.PAPPACHAN, KURAYILPLAVILA, KIZHATHADIYOOR PO., IV WARD, PALA MUNICIPALITY, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA – RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18876 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.117 of 2006, on the file of Sub Court, Pala. The suit is for redemption of plaint schedule property alleging that the lease in favour of the first respondent was terminated and petitioners are the legal heirs of the original lessors and entitled to get recovery of the property. Petitioners filed I.A.No.1534 of 2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit restraining respondents from alienating the property. Respondents resisted the petition. Under Ext.P2 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the petition, after vacating the order of injunction originally granted, before issuing notice to the respondents. Petitioners filed CMA.No.7 of 2007 before District Court, Kottayam. Learned District Judge, under Ext.P3 order, confirmed Ext.P2 order and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the order, petitioners originally filed CRP.No.262 of 2008. The revision was admitted and an order to maintain status quo was passed. When the revision was taken up, W.P.(C) No. 18876 of 2008 2 later, finding that revision will not lie against the order dismissing the appeal against an order in an interlocutory application, petitioners filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order, and thereafter withdrew CRP.No.262 of 2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 argued that respondents have obtained purchase certificate and in the light of the purchase certificate, petitioners are not entitled to an order which was rightly refused by the courts below, as respondents are in possession of the property. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that there was an order against the respondents till the disposal of the petition by learned Munsiff under Ext.P2 order, and thereafter from the date of CMA till its disposal under Ext.P3 order, and again from the date of order passed by this Court to maintain W.P.(C) No. 18876 of 2008 3 status quo in CRP.No.262 of 2008, and, therefore, the order of status quo be maintained and trial court may be directed to dispose the suit expeditiously. 5. In view of the order of status quo passed by this Court earlier, learned Munsiff is directed to dispose O.S.No.117 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by any observations in Exts.P2 and P3 orders. Parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.