IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 398 of 2009() --------------------- CMA.26/2009 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.1778/2008 of II ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM (IA.8555/2008) .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUSEUM AND ZOOS PROTECTION COUNCIL OF KERALA,HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT TC.25/3206, VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. ADV.S.SHYLAMANI,PRESIDENT, MUSEUM AND ZOOS PROTECTION COUNCIL OF KERALA, TC.25/3206,VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUSEUM AND ZOOS, MUSEUM COMPOUND,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.398 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R The revision is filed by the petitioner in O.S No.1778/2008 on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction and the respondents are the defendants in that suit. With the suit plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction as identical to the main relief prayed for in the suit till its disposal. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides declined the interim relief, against which the plaintiff preferred an appeal as C.M.A 26/2009 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge after hearing the counsel on both sides concurred with the views taken by the C.R.P.No.398 OF 2009 2 learned Munsiff that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of interim injunction, with the result the appeal was dismissed. The revision is filed challenging the propriety, correctness and legality of the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in the above appeal. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance canvassed by the counsel at the time of hearing is that while disposing the appeal the learned District Judge has expressed some views which may have its impact in the trial of the suit. Since the judgment has been rendered in an appeal passed against an interlocutory proceedings it is needless to point out that whatever be the views expressed by the learned District Judge that will not have any reflection in the final disposal of the suit, which has to be disposed on its merits after affording reasonable C.R.P.No.398 OF 2009 3 opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case. But having regard to the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in its order or in the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in the appeal. Subject to the observations made above, the revision is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv