IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10030 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- CMA.NO.20/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI, OS.NO.79/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- KANHIRAMPATTA SAIDALAVI @ SAIDU, S/O.ALIMOHAMMED, ALAKKAKUNDU P.O., KALIKAV AMSOM, TRIKKUNNASSERY DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.RAVEENDRAN, MR.P.S.R. PILLAI. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------- CHERATTUKUNDIL SULAIKHA, W/O.LATE HUSSAIN, KANHIRAMPATTA HOUSE, KALIKAVU AMSOM, THRIKKUNNASSERY DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MRP.VENUGOPAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10030 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading up to Exts.P2 and p3 by the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and quash the same and stay the orders. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to dispose of the suit at any early date.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.26/2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction which after hearing both sides was granted by the learned Munsiff. The decision rendered in that application was challenged by the defendant in appeal. The learned District Judge concurring with the views taken by the learned Munsiff that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the discretionary W.P.(C).No.10030 of 2009 - O 2 relief of injunction upheld the order, and dismissed the appeal. Impeaching the correctness of the order passed by the learned Munsiff and also the judgment in appeal by the learned District Judge, this writ petition has been filed by the defendant invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner/defendant. 4. It is submitted that some observations have been made with respect to the title in the order/judgment rendered by the lower court which may cause prejudice to the defendant in the trial of the case. I make it clear that whatever be the observations made by the learned Munsiff/District Judge in the judgment in appeal itshall have no effect or value in adjudicating the merits of the suit claim, which is to be done with reference to the evidence to be tendered by the parties involved in the suit. The learned Munsiff is directed to dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in his order or that of the learned District Judge in appeal preferred by the defendant. W.P.(C).No.10030 of 2009 - O 3 Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-