IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32412 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.253/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. NAGAMANI, W/O. PRASANNAN,VALIYAVILAKATHU VEEDU,KAVANATTUKONAM, PARAKUNNU, NAVAIKULAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. 2. PRASANNAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN, VALIYAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KAVANATTUKONAM, PARAKUNNU, VAVAIKULAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SULOCHANA, D/O. KRISHNAN MELATHATTIL VEEDU, MUDAPURAM DESOM, KIZHVALAM VILLAGE, KIZHVALAM P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. 2. RUDRANI, D/O. GOVINDAN, VAZHAVILA VEEDU, KARANATTUKONAM, NAVAIKULAM P.O. CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32412 OF 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the additional defendants in O.S No. 253 of 2006 on the file of Munsiff Court, Varkala. Suit is for injunction, and the respondents are the plaintiffs. On the death of the defendant, as legal representatives the present petitioners have been brought in the suit as additional defendants. Previously these petitioners have moved an application seeking stay of trial of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that in respect of the property covered by the suit, some proceedings are pending before the land Tribunal. That application after hearing both sides was dismissed. A review petition filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dismissing their application for stay under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also rejected by the court vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition. W.P.(C).No.32412 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Suit, admittedly is one for a decree of injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting them forcibly from the plaint property. When the relief is confined to a decree of injunction, pendency of any proceeding in the Land Tribunal over the subject matter is not material. So much so, even if some proceeding is pending before the Land Tribunal in respect of the subject matter involved in the suit, that cannot be canvassed as a ground to stay the trial of the suit either under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law. Such being the position of law, I find no interference with Ext.P4 order is called for. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE