IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 248 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.926/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- FR.LAZAR S.PATTAKADAVU, PARISH PRIEST, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION CHURCH, PULLICHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT: --------------- PULLICHIRA EDAVAKA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, REG.NO.Q 308/2009, PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM - 691 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, S.AUGUSTINE, EDEN, PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.248 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To set aside Ext.P4 exparte order of injunction in I.A.No.6412 of 2009 in O.S.No.926 of 2009 of the principal Munsiff Court, Kollam passed by ignoring the Caveat O.P.No.144 of 2009 and the pendency of the same mater before the statutory forum, viz, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in A.P.No.982 of 2009 after examining the legality, propriety and regularity of Exhibit P4.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.926 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against an exparte order of injunction passed in the above suit on the interlocutory application moved by the respondents/plaintiffs. Suit itself is one for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. Though the petitioner/first defendant had moved a caveat petition prior to the institution of the suit, according to the counsel, the court below passed interim relief without notice to him. It is further submitted that the interlocutory application for injunction to which the petitioner/first defendant has filed objection was heard by the learned Munsiff, but, no orders passed till date. W.P.(C).No.248 of 2010 - O 2 Though the petition has been posted for orders the grievance espoused by the counsel is that it is adjourned from time to time. It is also submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs have also initiated proceedings before the statutory Tribunal constituted under the Local Self Government Institutions in respect of the very same subject matter involved in the present suit, wherein also identical reliefs are stated to be canvassed. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find it is not proper and appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition and dwell into the disputed questions involved in respect of the interlocutory application for injunction which had already been heard by the learned Munsiff, but, not disposed of. Considering the urgency canvassed by the petitioner, I direct the learned Munsiff to pronounce final orders on the interlocutory application, if the same had been heard as represented, within fourteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-