IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37872 of 2007(H) -------------------------------------- OS.326/2000 of MUN-MAGI COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SAROJINI, D/O.LATE NARAYANI, 'AISWARAYA', NEDUNGOLAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SURESH BABU, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. LEELA, D/O.LEKSHMI, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM P.O., PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO.37872/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE IA. NO.578/04 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR DT. 14.6.04. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE INJUCNTION ORDER IN IA. 578/04 IN OS. NO.326/2000 DT. 8.9.04. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS IA. 1322/06 IN OS. NO.326/2000 DT. 16.10.2006. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE IA. NO.1339/06 DT. 16.10.06 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.4310/07 DT. 8.2.07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE INJUCNTION ORDER IN IA. NO.1339/06 IN IS. 326/00 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR DT. 9.4.07. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE IA. NO./561/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 3.5.07. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. NOP./561/07 IN OS. NO.326/00 DT. 2.7.07 PASSED BYTHE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.7.07 IN IA. 1322/06 IN OS. NO.326/00 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.37872 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed to set aside Exts.P8 and P9 orders passed by the court below. Ext.P8 order is passed on I.A.No.561 of 2007 in O.S.No.326 of 2000, which was filed by the 2nd plaintiff in the suit to enforce the order passed in I.A.No.1339 of 2006 with a direction to the Circle Inspector of Police. I.A.No.1322 of 2006 in O.S.No.326 of 2000 is filed by the very same second plaintiff for appointment of a Receiver. The court below dismissed both the applications. So far as the order in I.A.No.1322 of 2006 is concerned, it is an appeal able order and therefore I do not entertain a writ petition against that order and decline to entertain the same with liberty to the petitioner therein to challenge the matter in appeal before the appropriate court. 2. Now coming to I.A.No.561 of 2007 in O.S.No.326 of 2000. The contention of the plaintiffs in the suit is that with the fund of the first plaintiff and with an undertaking that it will be returned the property was purchased in the name of the first defendant, who was away at that point of WP(C)37872/2007 -:2:- time and thereafter on his return when demand was made to that effect, it is alleged that he told them that as he is not getting married, there is no necessity and therefore it continued in that fashion. On the other hand, the contesting defendants would contend that the property was purchased by the first defendant with his funds and after his return from Singapore he had married 2nd defendant and in the year 1997 he had executed a document in favour of settling the properties and thereafter she had sold a portion of the property having 10 cents of land described as B schedule and subsequently by Document No.1330 of 2006, he had sold the property in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and thereby defendants 3 and 4 are in enjoyment and possession of the entire 36 cents of property. 3. Earlier, there was an application for injunction as I.A.No.1480 of 2000 which relates to B schedule property and the court below dismissed that injunction application with some observation that the plaintiffs do not have any right over A and B schedule property, but the prayer was only with respect to B schedule property. The said order was confirmed by the appellate court. The argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd plaintiff in the case is to the effect that the said order covers only B schedule property and therefore it cannot have any binding effect with respect to the entire A schedule property. Learned counsel would submit that I.A.No.1339 of 2006 WP(C)37872/2007 -:3:- was filed with a specific prayer to grant an order of injunction with respect to 26 cents of land, i.e. deducting 10 cents of B schedule property and the court initially granted a temporary injunction and subsequently extended it until further orders. Learned counsel for defendants would contend that the first order was an ex parte order and the second order was also passed without hearing them and therefore they have moved an application before the court below to review the order as I.A.No.776/2007(filed by the 3rd defendant) and I.A.No.775/2007(filed by the 4th defendant). Or, in other words, defendants 3 and 4 have moved the court below for reviewing the order passed in I.A.No.1339 of 2006, which is pending consideration before the court below. There is a specific grievance for defendants 3 and 4 that the order has been passed without hearing them and therefore there is every likelihood of the matter being reviewed. Now it is to enforce the interim order a petition is filed. There is an application pending before the court below for reviewing that interim order. So, in the fitness of things, it is only just and equitable to consider the application for enforcement of that order only after the review applications are disposed of. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A.No.561/2007 in O.S.No.326/2000 and direct him to restore it to file and keep it pending. After the disposal of the review applications I.A.No.775 & WP(C)37872/2007 -:4:- 776/2007 the learned Munsiff can reconsider this application in accordance with law and dispose it of on merits. So far as the receiver application is concerned, I have already directed the petitioner therein is at liberty to move the appropriate appellate court for further decision or direction as the case may be. I am informed that the plaintiffs have filed two review petitions. So far as I.A.No.561/2007 is concerned, that order is set aside and directed to be kept pending and that review applications must be heard. But, so far as it relates to review of the order the receiver application the court may not consider that application as I have directed the party to file appeal. With these directions, the applications are disposed of. I also earnestly feel that instead of trying the matter always at the interlocutory level, it is desirable that the case itself can be tried and disposed of by the learned Munsiff, as expeditiously as possible and I am not fixing any time obviously for the reason that the interim applications are poured into the court intermittently and consecutively. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-