IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 Tr.P(C).No. 68 of 2009 ------------------------ OS.25/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER/1st DEFENDANT: ------------------------------ BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/2ND DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. VISWAMBARAN , USHA NIVAS,KIDANGIL VEEDU MUKKOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRASSANNAN, TOP INDIAN HARDWARE SHOP JIGU BUILDING, MUKKOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.C. No. 68 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 ORDER In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the revision petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the first defendant in OS No.25/08 on the file of the Court of Munsiff of Nedumangad. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent restraining the petitioner from erecting a mobile tower on the roof top of a building belonging to the 2nd respondent. The trial court granted an ex-parte interim injunction. The plaintiff filed IA No.168/08 for appointing an advocate commissioner. The court below allowed that application. The petitioner challenged that order in WP(C) No.8716/08. The writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the court below was set aside. The court below was directed to consider the question of maintainability of the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed IA No.1276/08 to consider the question of maintainability of the suit. The court below held, as per the order dated 08.04.08, that the suit is maintainable. That order was set aside in CRP No.524/08. The court below was directed to consider Tr.P.C No. 68 OF 2009 -:2:- the matter afresh in accordance with law. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court below has not passed any order in the application submitted by the petitioner questioning the maintainability of the suit. The petitioner has another grievance that even the application for temporary injunction is not disposed of. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed this transfer petition praying to transfer the suit to some other court. I do not think that the prayer made by the petitioner is sustainable. It is true that the court below has not considered the question of maintainability of the suit after the order in CRP No.524/08. It may also be true that the court below has not considered the question whether the interim injunction should be vacated or not. Simply because the court has not disposed of these matters, that by itself is not a ground to transfer the suit to some other court. The prayer for transfer is misconceived. The transfer petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, to that extent. I do so. 4. However, it is necessary that the court should pass an order in IA No.1276/08 expeditiously. It is also necessary to consider the contention of the petitioner that the oder of interim injunction is liable Tr.P.C No. 68 OF 2009 -:3:- to be vacated. Rule 3-A of Order XXXIX mandates that the court shall dispose of an application within thirty days if an interim order is granted in the circumstances mentioned in that Rule. Therefore, there will be a direction to the court below to consider these aspects and pass a final order in IA No.1276/08 and the application for temporary injunction before closure of the courts for summer holidays. The Transfer Petition is dismissed with the above observation. (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE ttb