IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14251 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1318/2008 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- M.N.BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MANNUVELIL NARAYANAN, KUNNATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,] PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.M.SUDHEER, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.M.KISHORKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14251 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate orders to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the I Addl. Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ orders to the respondent to remove the hoarding erected over the B schedule building in violation of the injunction order passed on Ext.P2 application. iii) Direct the respondents to pay the costs of the proceeding to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Ext.P1 suit, O.S.NO.1318/2008 pending on the file of the Munsiff Court II, Ernakulam in which he sought for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from erecting a hoarding or advertisement board over plaint B schedule building “dangerously”, in such a way causing danger or nuisance to the property of the plaintiff and interfering with the peaceful and fearless enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property. He also W.P.(C).No.14251 of 2009 - O 2 moved an application for an interim injunction seeking an identical relief till disposal of the suit. Ext.P2 is the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff. Admittedly, an ex-parte order of injunction was passed in Ext.P2 I.A restraining the defendants from putting up a hoarding on the roof of plaint B schedule building in a dangerous manner which is likely to cause threat and injury to the petitioner/plaintiff. Pursuant to passing of the order, the respondents after obtaining permit from the local authority put up a hoarding on the roof of plaint B schedule building which, according to the respondents, in no way cause any danger to the petitioner/plaintiff. Petitioner/plaintiff thereupon moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking an order directing the respondents to remove the hoarding erected in plaint B schedule building contending that it had been put up in violation of the order passed by the court in Ext.P2 application. The learned Munsiff after hearing the counsel on both sides and also the materials produced by both sides passed Ext.P5 order holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get an order of status quo ante. In forming such a conclusion, an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.29100/2008, it W.P.(C).No.14251 of 2009 - O 3 appears , was also taken into consideration by the learned Munsiff. Challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for an order as prayed by him in the petition moved under Section 151 of the CPC before the court below. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. The word “dangerous” stated in Ext.P2 application moved by the plaintiff for an interim injunction and also in the order passed by the learned Munsiff while granting an interim injunction, it appears, has given rise to much confusion in reaching a fair conclusion whether the hoarding put up by the respondents over plaint B schedule building amounts to violation of the order passed by the courts. Court below cannot be found fault with for using the word “dangerous” in the interim order since the same expression was used by the petitioner/plaintiff in Ext.P2 application. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to reach a conclusion whether the hoarding put up by respondents causes any threat or danger to the plaintiff or anyone living in the W.P.(C).No.14251 of 2009 - O 4 neighbourhood. From the submissions made at the bar, it appears, the hoarding had been put up after getting required sanction from the local authority. But, that by itself will not be sufficient to hold no danger is caused to the plaintiff by erection of the hoarding. Even before erecting the hoarding he has approached the court with a suit for injunction restraining the respondents from putting up the hoarding. So the limited question to be considered in the I.A. (Ext.P2) is whether the petitioner/plaintiff has a prima facie case to prevent the respondents from putting up a hoarding over the roof of the plaint B schedule building and whether putting up a hoarding would cause threat or injury to the petitioner/plaintiff in the case. That question remains to be resolved by the learned Munsiff as Ext.P2 application for interim injunction in which ex-parte ordrer was passed, is yet to be disposed after hearing both sides. It is submitted that two advocate commissioners conducted local inspections and filed reports pursuant to Ext.P2 application moved by the plaintiff. W.P.(C).No.14251 of 2009 - O 5 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find an order on the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of the CPC seeking a status quo ante emerges for consideration depending upon the result of the interim application, Ext.P2 moved by him. So, setting aside Ext.P5 order, learned Munsiff is directed to hear and dispose of Ext.P2 application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and thereupon pass appropriate orders on the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-