IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 7680 of 2009(O) ------------------------- CMA.18/2008 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.23/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------ P.T.SUBASH, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, ARAMPUNNA MURI, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, MR.L.RAM MOHAN, MR.R.MANOJ. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SUKUMARA PILLAI, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU, ELAMPEL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. INDIRAMMA, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU, ELAMPEL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. SUBASH, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU, ELAMPEL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 4. GEETHA SANTHOSH, 'ANANDHAM', PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU, ELAMPEL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7681 OF 2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.7680 AND 7681 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The common petitioner in these two writ petitions is the plaintiff in O.S No. 23 of 2008 and the defendant in O.S No.27 of 2008, both pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur. Suit filed by the petitioner is one for cancellation of a sale deed and consequential injunction. Suit filed by the respondent in writ petition No. 7681 of 2009, the second defendant in O.S No.23 of 2008, is one for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner from trespassing upon or interfering in any manner the peaceful possession and enjoyment of that property by that respondent. The learned Munsiff after hearing both the applications passed separate W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers AND 7681 OF 2009 orders, dismissing the application for interim injunction moved by the petitioner and allowing that of the second respondent / plaintiff in O.S No. 27 of 2008. Aggrieved by the orders so passed, petitioner preferred two appeals as C.M.A No.18/2008 and C.M.A No.8/2008 before Sub Court, Kottarakara. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides and appreciating the materials tendered by the parties on the interlocutory applications, upheld the orders passed by the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeals under a common judgment. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that common judgment, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P10 in writ petition No. 7681/2009, petitioner has filed these two writ petitions invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers AND 7681 OF 2009 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the observations made in the common judgment by the learned Sub Judge if not removed would have serious reflection and bearing in the trial of the suit and its disposal by the learned Munsiff. It is further submitted that, materials produced by the petitioner to substantiate his case including the commission report have not been properly appreciated by the court below while passing orders on the interlocutory applications. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the orders passed by the court below granting discretionary equitable relief there is no infirmity or any error, and the orders concurrently passed by two inferior courts do not warrant any interference in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court. Having regard to the submissions made by the W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers AND 7681 OF 2009 counsel on both sides and perusing impugned Ext.P10 judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge, I find, it may not be proper for this court to reappreciate the materials in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. But I find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations and findings in interlocutory applications should have no bearing or reflection in the final orders to be passed in a suit or proceeding. A further request is also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till the suits are disposed on merits, the status quo at present should be retained. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no alteration nor any construction will be made in the property covered by the suit till its disposal by the Munsiff Court. That submission is recorded. I direct the learned Munsiff, Punalur to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible untrammelled by any of the observations made in his order or in the W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers AND 7681 OF 2009 common judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, at any rate, before the closing of the courts in the mid summer vacation 2010. The learned Munsiff shall also consider the feasibility of joint trial of the two suits whether or not any application is moved by any of the parties to the suit. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv