IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2266 of 2008(T) ------------------------- OS.376/2006 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONER: ------------- V. MUHAMMED, S/O. BHAVA, VAZHAYIL VEEDU, POST POKKKUNNU IN KINASSERY, VALAYANAD AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK AND KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: --------------- O.N. JALISH, S/O. MUHAMMED KOYA, O.N. HOUSE, NADVATTAM IN BAYPORE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 2266 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order passed by the Munsiff in I.A. 2517/07 in O.S. 376/06. The prayer in the writ petition is for mandatory injunction, which has been refused by the court below. Mandatory injunction can be granted only in extra ordinary and exceptional circumstances and that too in a situation where the subject matter of the suit has to be brought back to the original position, as on the date of the suit. Here, the whole suit is based on an agreement whereby the plaintiff has been permitted to install an advertisement board for a period of three years. I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the case. But Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to do away with a refusal of a prayer granted by the court on sufficient grounds. Therefore, I decline the jurisdiction and the writ petition is dismissed. If there is any other remedy available for the writ petitioner, he may choose to file the same before the court below. I make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not be a bar for the same. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps