IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28186 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.20 OF 2009 IN OS.8/2009 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER: IST DEFENDANT ---------------------------- P.A.HILAL BABU, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.K.KUNJU, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF ------------------------ 1. ABEES, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.A.SAIF, ARAFATH (FORMERLY PUTHENPURAYIL), R.C.CHURCH ROAD, KAYAMKULAM. 2. LAILA MUHAMMED, AGED 72 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.K.KUNJU, NAYANA PRIYA, D12, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MEHER SAIF, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.A.SAIF,ARAFATH(FORMERLY PUTHENPURAYIL), R.C.CHURCH ROAD, KAYAMKULAM. 4. ANEES, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.A.SAIF, ARAFATH(FORMERLY PUTHENPURAYIL), R.C.CHURCH ROAD, KAYAMKULAM. 5. SONIA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.A.SAIF, ARAFATH(FORMERLY PUTHENPURAYIL), R.C.CHURCH ROAD, KAYAMKULAM. 6. SHANIA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.A.SAIF, ARAFATH(FORMERLY PUTHENPURAYIL), R.C.CHURCH ROAD, KAYAMKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.28186 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 19th October, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a direction to the Sub Court, Mavelikara to consider, dispose, and pass orders in I.A.No.20 of 2009 filed in O.S.No.8 of 2009 as early as possible within a time limit.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court Mavelikkara. Suit is for partition and the respondents are the plaintiffs and codefendants. With the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction and an ex parte order of injunction was passed against the petitioner/1st defendant from alienating the property. Despite filing objections and even after several adjournments, the application for injunction has not been taken up for consideration is the grievance canvassed by the petitioner/1st defendant for issue a writ/direction to the court below for an early hearing on the application for injunction and its disposal on merits. A report was called for from the learned Sub Judge as to why the above interlocutory application has not been disposed. Complying with the direction, a report has been filed. W.P.C.No.28186/09 - 2 - 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and it is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interlocutory application for injunction, in which an ex parte order was passed against him, came up for consideration on several posting dates, but, despite the submissions made for an early hearing, it is adjourned from time to time. It is seen from the averments made in the petition, the I.A. had not less than ten postings. The application is now posted to 26.10.2009, even after the report is called for from the learned Sub Judge, is the submission of the counsel. Perusing the report, I find, an impleading petition is pending and it will be possible to consider the I.A. only after considering the impleadment application and the interim relief granted to the first respondent was only against the alienation, is the substance of the report sent by the learned Sub Judge as to why the I.A. has not been disposed. I am afraid, the learned Sub Judge has not take note of the mandate under Order 39 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C., which demands an expeditious hearing and disposal of an injunction application where an ex parte order had been passed against the opposite party. The above rule reads thus: “3-A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days:- Where an injunction has W.P.C.No.28186/09 - 3 - been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability.” The court issuing an ex parte order is obliged to dispose the application for injunction as mandated by the above rule and where it is unable to do so, it has to record its reasons for such inability. The reasons set out by the learned Sub Judge for nondisposal of the injunction application are not proper and correct, and further, it amounts to flagrant disregard to the obligation cast on the court under the above rule. 4. I direct the learned Sub Judge to hear and dispose P1 application within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed as indicated above. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy to the concerned court forthwith. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE