IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38247 of 2007(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 985/07 IN OS.186/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ GIMI GEORGE, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER MINI GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS, THURUTHIPALLIL HOUSE, 12TH MILE, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJIV.C.K. RESPONDENT: ------------- GENERAL CONVENER, KOTTAYAM EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM(2007-2008), HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. OFFICE ADDRESS: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION), KOTTAYAM EDUCATION DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 38247 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the items of Folk Dance and Bharathanatyam in the Kottayam District level school Kalotsavam 2007-08, which is proposed to be held from 1.1.2008. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though she has moved a suit along with an injunction application, the court below did not granted her prayer. It is submitted that the court below should have seen that the petitioner is an outstanding stage performer in the items of Folk Dance and Bharathanatyam. Whatever it may be, it has to be sated that at the first stage during the competition her entitlement has been negatived on merits and a competent civil court has also refused to pass an oder in her favour. Then certainly, she should have moved the appellate court which also she has resorted to. Now stating that gross injustice is done she has approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even eschewing the technicalities, on merits without any proper materials one cannot slightly brush aside the order passed by the civil court. The interim mandatory injunction is a remedy which is only to be exercised under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of a civil court and ordinarily WPC NO 38247/07 2 it is used by the court to put the things into the state of affairs on the date of institution of the suit. Granting an interim mandatory injunction without applying the mind or hearing the other side would lead to virtually allowing the suit itself. Instead of rushing to this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner should have very well resorted to the appellate remedy and the vacation court was in full swing at that time. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he did not obtain a copy of the order and therefore he did not prefer a CMA. But it is not happy to state that even without a copy of the order, the matter is attempted to be brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore this is not a fit case where this court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Being a civil remedy, if ultimately the party succeeds in the suit she is always entitled to claim damages from the persons responsible for the same. So one cannot say that it has caused an irreparable injury as well. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed . M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 38247/07 3