IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 237 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.764/1992 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A. KAMARUDHEEN, S/O. ABBAS, AGED 59, ABBAS MANZIL, MANJAKKULAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN MUSALIAR, ARAKKAL HOUSE, MANJAKKULAM, PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.237 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff, Palakkad allowing a cheque application moved by the respondent/plaintiff after disposal of the suit. Suit O.S.No.764 of 1992 on the file of the above court, after trial, was dismissed. Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in that suit. The suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the offerings received in the mosque and also from interfering with the management of the day today affairs of the mosque. An interim arrangement was made on the basis of consent of the parties permitting the plaintiff to collect the offerings in the hundi at one place and the defendants from the hundi at another place. The defendants had resisted the suit contending that it was a public wakf and not a private wakf as claimed by the plaintiff. Suit, after trial as indicated was WPC.237/10 2 dismissed. Pending disposal of the suit, a cheque application moved by the plaintiff was objected to by the defendants contending that the suit had already been listed for trial. A writ petition was filed before this Court by the petitioner/2nd defendant for consideration of the cheque application after disposal of the suit only. It was not brought to the notice of the court the interim arrangement entered into by the parties previously which had been recognised by this Court as well on an earlier occasion. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a direction was given to the learned Musniff to consider the cheque application after disposal of the suit. Now the present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the cheque application after the suit was dismissed. Since the suit had been dismissed, the cheque application of the respondent/plaintiff should not have been allowed is the case canvassed by the petitioner/2nd defendant to impeach the correctness of Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff. I do not find any merit in the challenge canvassed to assail Ext.P3 order. Previous arrangement agreed upon by the parties with respect to the sharing of WPC.237/10 3 offerings made during the pendency of the suit has to be honoured and given effect to when it has been recognised by this Court as well and that alone was done by the court below in allowing the cheque application vide Ext.P3 order. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp