IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15708 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.NO.144/2009 OF MUSNIFF COURT,ADOOR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.G. RATNA, LASHMI NIVAS, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER. 2. AKHILA BHARATHA AYYAPPA SEVA SANGHAM, SAKHA NO. 344, PANDALAM. 3. AKHILA BHARATHA AYYAPPA SEVA SANGHAM, SAKHA NO. 344, PANDALAM.REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT K. NARAYANAKURUP, RAMA NIVAS, THOONNALLOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE. 4. P. NARENDRAN NAIR, SANTHI NILAYAM, THOONALLOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE. 6. R. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, KAVERIYIL, THOONNALOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN, R3 & R4 BY MR.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.C.B.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15708 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To call for the records of the case in O.S.No.144/2009 of the Munsiff Court, Adoor, examine the same and issue a writ or certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1”. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite filing a caveat anticipating a suit by the respondents 2 to 5 in the petition and moving for getting orders of interim nature in such suit, without notice to him, in a suit filed by the respondents, the court passed an order of interim injunction against him and, later, without an application from the plaintiff in that suit the order of interim injunction was extended. Petitioners want this Court to call the records of the case and quash the injunction proceedings relating to the grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the above suit, respondents 2 to 5 in the present petition. At the time of hearing, learned senior counsel W.P.(C).No.15708 of 2009 - O 2 Adv.Sri.Krishnanunni representing on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 submitted that the I.A. filed by the such respondents in the suit, O.S.No.144/2009, was heard and after considering the objections raised by the petitioners/defendants in the suit, the court has passed orders. The counsel submitted that he is not in a position to state what exactly is the nature of the order passed in the I.A. Whatever that be when it is seen that the I.A itself has been heard and disposed of by the court, it will be inappropriate for this Court to examine the grievance raised by the petitioner in the writ petition as adequate alternative efficacious remedy by way of an appeal to challenge the order passed by the learned Munsiff, in case it is adverse, is available to the petitioners. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy before the competent forum as envisaged by law, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. W.P.(C).No.15708 of 2009 - O 3 bkn/-