IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 FAO.No. 13 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2009 IN IA 8601/09 IN OS.1016/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANTO CHAKKARAMAKKIL, S/O.CHAKKARAMAKKIL THOMAS, IX/88A OLD V, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SINI ANTO, W/O.ANTO, CHAKKARAMAKKIL HOUSE, IX/88A OLD V, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------------------- KURIAKOSE, S/O.CHAKKARAMAKKIL LONAPPAN, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MANJU ANTONEY(CAVEATOR) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.136/2010 IN FAO.NO.13/2010 CLOSED 13/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... F.A.O.No. 13 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the IInd Additional Sub Judge, Trichur in I.A.No.8601/2009 in O.S.No.1016/2009. I may at the outset like to state that this Court has repeatedly cautioned that the orders can be brief but not blank. 2. The learned counsel for the caveator wants to argue the case elaborately and I have not permitted him to do so for the reason that I am not dealing the matter on merits. 3. I have perused the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. In one place he has quoted that “occupation is without the permission of the court” and ultimately he gives an order restraining the very same persons from occupying the building till the disposal of the suit. This cannot go together. Further it is also seen that the court has passed the order without hearing the respondent's counsel for the reason that he was not : 2 : F.A.O.No. 13 OF 2010 available. But, by just recording I am convinced that a prima facie case is made out is not sufficient to grant an order of temporary injunction when Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates some application of mind and exercise of judicial discretion. I make it clear that I have not made any discussion with respect to the merit of the case, but I am convinced that the court below has not considered the case on merits and the order itself is inconsistent from the way in which it is written. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichur to consider and pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.8601/2009 in O.S.No.1016/2009. Since the matter pertains to an order of injunction, let there be an expeditious disposal as early as possible and the parties are directed to appear before the said court for further directions on 01.02.2010. Needless to say that the injunction petition has to be heard and disposed of within 30 days from the date of first appearance of the parties. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : F.A.O.No. 13 OF 2010