IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 8236 of 2009(O) ------------------------- CMA.35/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.G.SIVADASAN NAIR, S/O. K.G.GOVINDAN NAIR, KOLLANIKAL HOUSE, EDAKUNNAM KARA, MUNDAKKAYAM VILLAGE, CHITTADY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ANILA GEORGE, W/O. GEORGE K.JOSEPH, KOODAPPUZHA HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, CHIRAKKADAVU VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN, MR.V.JAYAKUMAR, MR.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. MAMMEN ISSAC, S/O. T.S.MAMMEN, KALLOOR VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU KARA, PARAMELPADY DESOM, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. K.S.KUNJOONJAMMA, W/O. ITTIAVIRAH, KOLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAPPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.MR.MATHEW JOHN R2 BY ADV. MR.V.N.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8236/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 3/11/2006 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM ON I.A.NO.3998/2006 IN O.S.NO.584/2006. P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 22/08/08 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM IN CMA NO.35/2007. P3: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT TOGETHER WITH ROUGH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD.12/09/2007. P4: COPY OF EXCHANGE DEED NO.3153/2005 DTD. 14/06/2005 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. P5: COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 18/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. P6: COPY OF SALE DEED DTD. 28/01/2006 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8236 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.584 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Suit is one for prohibitory injunction and respondents are the defendants. An application for interim injunction as sought for in the suit applied for by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned Munsiff which however, was reversed by the learned District Judge in appeal preferred by the defendants. Writ petition is filed challenging the propriety and correctness of that judgment rendered by the learned District Judge dismissing the interlocutory application for injunction moved by the plaintiff. When the writ petition came up for hearing it is submitted that the suit had been dismissed for default. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed for retaining the writ petition on the file submitting that an application had already been moved for restoring the suit dismissed for default and if the writ petition is dismissed, the observations made in the impugned judgment by the learned W.P.(C).No.8236 of 2009 - O 2 District Judge may have some decisive effect in the disposal of the suit on merits after restoration. I find no reason for entertaining such an apprehension. Whatever be the observations made by the learned Munsiff in his order while disposing the interlocutory application for injunction or by the District Judge in appeal against the order passed by the learned Munsiff, such observations cannot have any bearing or influence in the disposal of the suit on merits. Since the suit had been dismissed for default, there is no merit in keeping the writ petition on file. Subject to the observations made above, writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-