IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30659 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- OS.136/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERINTHALMANNA .................... PETITIONERS: 1. AVATHUKATTIL ABDULLA, S/O. MOHAMMED KUTTY, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VILAKATHALA KUNJI MOHAMMED, S/O. MOHAMMED KUTTY, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. CHOZHI MANGALATH YOOSUF, S/O. MOHAMMED, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. PULAKKUNNAN KUNJAMMAD, S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. PADIPURAKKAL ASHRAF, S/O. USMAN, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. KALAKAPPARA SAKKIR, S/O. ABDU, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. OLAVANKANDATHIL MUHAMMED, S/O. AHAMMED, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. THAYYILKARUTHODI ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. ALIHASSAN, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. PELASSERY MOIDHEEN KUTTY, S/O. AHAMMED, RAMAPURAM DESOM, PUZHAKATTIRI AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN W.P.(C) NO. 30659/2008 : 2 : RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. MOOTHEDAN HASSAN, S/O. MUHAMMED HAJI, MAKKARAPARAMBU AMSOM, DESOM PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KAVUNGAL LATHEEF, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, MAKKARAPARAMBU AMSOM, DESOM PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RELIANCE TELECOM INFRA STRUCTURE LTD., A & P ARCADE, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 30659 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 136 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perinthalmanna, seek a temporary injunction as prayed for in Ext.P2 interlocutory application filed before the court below till the court below passes orders on Ext.P2 application filed as I.A. No. 822 of 2008. The injunction prayed for is against the installation of a transmission tower by the third defendant in the plaint A schedule property which is the property adjacent to the property of the petitioners/plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, if the tower is installed, it will detrimentally affect the interests of the plaintiffs. The petitioners would have it that the learned Munsiff ought to have granted an ad interim order of injunction in I.A. No. 822 of 2008. But, that court has only ordered notice. Hence this writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is not that the third defendant is intending to trespass upon the property of the petitioners for the purpose of installing the tele communication tower. Their grievance is really that if a tele communication is installed in the neighbouring property, it will detrimentally affect the petitioners/plaintiffs. That is a matter to be considered after hearing W.P.(C) No. 30659/2008 : 2: the respondents as well. That was precisely why the learned Munsiff was only inclined to order notice on Ext.P2 application filed as I.A. No. 822 of 2008. After the amendment of Order 39 C.P.C., the normal rule is to order notice to the opposite party and granting of an ad interim order of injunction is an exception and will be justified only in case the court is of the view that the object of granting injunction will be defeated by delay. Even before the amendment of C.P.C., this Court had taken the same view (vide R.T.O v/s. N.V. Motor Service - 1973 KLJ 608). Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Munsiff in ordering notice instead of granting an ex parte order of injunction. It is up to the learned Munsiff to consider the pros and corns after hearing the parties and then decide whether an interim injunction as prayed for is to be granted or not. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 30659/2008 : 3: W.P.(C) No. 30659/2008 : 4: