IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23061 of 2008(U) -------------------------- CMA.7/2008 of SUB COURT, PALA IA 2098/2007 IN OS.262/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SANDHYAKUMARI, AGED 37, D/O. BALAKRISHNA KAIMAL, VELLAPPILLIL BHAVANATH, KUDAKKACHIRA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOY ABRAHAM, AGED 53, IDATHINAL, KURIANAD KARA, MONIPILLI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. 2. MERCYAMMA JOY, W/O. JOY ABRAHAM, IDATHINAL, KURIANAD KARA, MONIPPILLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23061 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.267 of 2007, on the file of Munsiff Court, Pala. Respondents are the plaintiffs. In the suit, petitioner filed a counter claim and also filed I.A.No.2098 of 2007, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, for an order of temporary injunction restraining plaintiffs from trespassing into plaint schedule property. Under Ext.P1 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application. Petitioner challenge that order before Sub Court, Pala, in C.M.A.No.7 of 2008. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal under Ext.P2 order. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. W.P.(C) No.23061 of 2008 2 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below finding that petitioner has a arguable case should have granted an order atleast directing respondents not to commit any waste or damages, and in such circumstances, Exts.P1 and P2 orders are to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Exts.P1 and P2 orders, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. Petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit sought an order of temporary injunction as against plaintiffs contending that he has been in possession of the plaint schedule property and plaintiffs are attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule property. Learned Munsiff under Ext.P1 order found that petitioner did not establish a prima facie case, and, balance of convenience is also not in his favour and refused to grant an order of injunction. Learned Sub Judge also re-appreciated the materials and found that petitioner did not establish his possession of the property as claimed, and, therefore, prima facie he did not establish the case. Learned Sub Judge also found that balance of convenience is also not in his favour. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to W.P.(C) No.23061 of 2008 3 interfere with Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit, as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by any observations in Exts.P1 and P2 orders. If the petitioner files an application to vacate the order of injunction granted in favour of the respondents, learned Munsiff to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.