IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 13387 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.8/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR OS.415/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,ALUVA (IA.2206/2008) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SUBAIR,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, KORANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALIAKKAPPADY, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 2. SUBAIRATH, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. SUBAIR, KORNGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALLIAKKAPADY, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. T.A.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD., 308/2,S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOORE TALUK. 2. VARGHESE.K.V. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, MANAGER, CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD., KARATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 3. M/S. CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD, 308/2, S.A.ROAD, VYTILA, KOCHI-19, KANAYANNOORE TALUK. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13387/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 28/11/2007. P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT. P3: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2206/08 FILED ALONGWITH THE SUIT. P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P5: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2206/08 DTD. 13/02/2009. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMA.8/09 DTD. 7/04/09 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT NORTH PARUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13387 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 14th September, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash Exts.P6 and P7 orders of the courts below. 2. To issue a writ of prohibition against respondents by allowing I.A.No.2206/08 in O.S.No.415/08 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Aluva, pending disposal of the suit. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.415 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Aluva. Suit is for recovery of possession and injunction both prohibitory and mandatory. With the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint properties and disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of those properties. Respondents/defendants resisted that application filing a counter. The trial court, after hearing both sides, by P6 order dismissed the application of the plaintiffs for interim injunction. Aggrieved by that order, petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal as C.M.A.No.8 of 2009 before the Additional District Court, North Parur. The learned District Judge, after hearing both sides, concurred with the views W.P.C.No.13387/09 - 2 - taken by the learned Munsiff and declined the interim injunction sought for by dismissing the appeal. P7 is the copy of that judgment. Propriety and correctness of P7 judgment is challenged in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. The disputes between the parties relate to the question whether the 4th defendant/third respondent in the Writ Petition has paid the entire sum agreed upon for surrendering the land by the plaintiffs for widening of a road leading to their construction site. Whereas the plaintiffs contend that the entire sum as agreed has not been paid, the third defendant would contend that the total sum agreed upon had been paid. Both the courts below, on the materials produced, found that the case canvassed by the plaintiffs is not acceptable and therefore declined the interim relief sought for. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs pressed for maintaining the order of status quo passed by this court till the disposal of the suit. Inviting my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is submitted that portions surrendered for the road by the petitioners still remain untarred, while the rest of the W.P.C.No.13387/09 - 3 - road formed are tarred and that state of affairs, according to the learned counsel, has to be preserved still the suit is disposed by maintaining the order of status quo. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to the request made contending that there is no merit in the interim relief sought for by the plaintiffs and it was rightly and correctly declined by both the courts below. That being so, the petitioners/plaintiffs is not entitled to the order of status quo is the submission of the learned counsel. It is also pointed out that the Writ Petition filed by the first plaintiff seeking police protection in respect of the subject matter involved in the present suit had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court finding that there was material suppression of facts in his petition. A copy of the judgment rendered in W.P.C.No.30360 of 2008 was also handed over to me by the learned counsel. Perusing that judgment and also taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the submissions made, I find an order of status quo solely relying upon the statement made in the counter affidavit that portions surrendered by the plaintiffs remain untarred, while the rest of the road is tarred, is not possible. True, there may be commission report in the suit prepared at an earlier point of time, but, to determine the status quo order W.P.C.No.13387/09 - 4 - passed by this court in the Writ Petition, as on the date of passing of that order, I find there is no material. Further more, when two courts have concurrently found that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of interim injunction, without justifiable ground, it may not be proper or appropriate for this court to pass an order of status quo and that too without ascertaining what exactly is the status quo now prevailing in respect of the subject matter in the suit. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE