IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25736 of 2008(L) -------------------------- (O.S.No.380 of 2007 of SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA) PETITIONER: ------------ PUSHPARAJAMONY, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.SWAMY SWAMY REDDIAR, SAKTHI NIVAS, 9/24-A, ELAPPANAGAR MAIN STREET (WEST END) TIRUVETTIPURAM, CHEYYAR, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH CHURCH ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA – 688 010 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25736 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the appellant in C.M.A.No.14 of 2008, on the file of District Court, Alappuzha. C.M.A. was filed challenging the order passed by Sub Court, Alappuzha, in I.A.No.846 of 2008 in O.S.No.380 of 2007. Along with C.M.A., petitioner filed I.A.No.658 of 2008, an application for injunction. Under Ext.P3 order dated, 4.7.2008, learned Sub Judge granted an order of injunction and issued notice to 2.8.2008. On 2.8.2008, the application was adjourned to 12.8.2008. On that date, it was again posted to 13.8.2008. On that day, the order of injunction was vacated. Petitioner then filed Ext.P4 review petition under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order vacating the order of injunction. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to Sub Court to consider and pass orders in C.M.A. as well as Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, and also for a further direction to maintain status quo. W.P.(C) No.25736/2008 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that on 12.8.2008, petitioner sought an adjournment of the case to 16.8.2008, but court adjourned the case to 13.8.2008, and on 13.8.2008, in the morning, it was submitted to take up the case after lunch, but before the counsel could reach, learned District Judge vacated the order of injunction and immediately he filed Ext.P4 review petition and learned District Judge did not pass any order in Ext.P4 petition. It was argued that if an order of injunction is not granted, respondent would proceed against the property, and in such circumstances, a direction is to be issued. Learned counsel also submitted that till a decision is taken in Ext.P4 petition and the C.M.A., respondent is to be directed to maintain status quo. 4. When Ext.P4 petition was filed on the same day on which the order of injunction was vacated, learned District Judge should have passed an order immediately without further W.P.(C) No.25736/2008 3 postponing the petition for hearing as the order of injunction was vacated without hearing the petitioner. In such circumstances, District Judge, Alappuzha, is directed either dispose of C.M.A.No.14 of 2008 immediately or to pass an order in Ext.P4 petition, as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioner files an application for advancing the hearing of Ext.P4 application, which now stands posted to 3.9.2008, learned District Judge to advance the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. In that event, even if the learned District Judge is not sitting, the Judge in charge of the Court, shall pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4 petition. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.