IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32647 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.396/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. GEORGE,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.PAILY,KAVUMPURATH HOUSE,VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. LILLY,AGED 60 YEARS,W/O.GEORGE, KAVUMPURATH HOUSE,VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MR.P.M.RAFEEK RESPONDENT: --------------- SARAMMA,AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.K.J.SCARIA, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE,VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.396 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. The above suit is one for declaration and for injunction, and the respondent is the plaintiff. On the application moved by the respondent/plaintiff an exparte order of injunction was passed against these petitioners/defendants in the suit. An advocate commissioner was also deputed by the court at the request of the respondent/plaintiff and it is submitted after local inspection the commissioner has filed a report. Resisting the suit claim these petitioners/defendants in the suit, it is submitted, have filed a written statement in which they have also raised a counter claim. they also moved two applications, one for interim injunction against the plaintiff and another for appointment of an advocate commissioner to ascertain some matters which are stated to be necessary for a proper and fair disposal of the injunction petition and also the suit. Ext.P7 is the copy of the injunction application and Ext.P8 is the commission application. Grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite lapse of two months Exts.P7 and P8 applications are W.P.(C).No.32647 of 2009 - O 2 not taken up for consideration and Ext.P3 exparte order of injunction continue to be in force even after the defendant filing objections to the injunction applications of the plaintiff. The only relief canvassed is the issue of a writ/order/direction to the court below for expeditious consideration of injunction application moved by both sides and also the commission application moved by the defendants. 2. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. There will be a direction to the court below to consider the injunction application of both parties and also the commission application of the defendant, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioners and send a copy to the court concerned. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-