IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 62 of 2011(O) ----------------------- CMA.57/2010 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.751/2010 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONERS : --------------------- 1. L.JOYKUTTY,S/O.SAWRENCE,AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARIES,T.C.NO.33/942(2),VTVRA 109,APPEN PILLAI ROAD,TITANIUM PO,KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MOLY MARCELINE.C,D/O.C.V.MARCELINE, R/AT ARIES,T.C.NO.33/942(2),VTVRA 109,APPEN PILLAI ROAD,TITANIUM PO,KOCHUVELI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOHN K.SAMUEL,S/O..C.D.SAMUEL, C/O.VEENA.K.JOHN,CHIRYSAILS COMMUNICATIONS PVT. TC NO.9/964/67,PARICKER'S LANE,SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 010. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.62 of 2011 O ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The respondent instituted O.S.No.751 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Ist Additional Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule building except under due process of law. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a tenant in respect of the building and attempts were made by the defendants to forcibly evict him. An interim order of injunction was granted. It was being extended from time to time. The petitioners/defendants did not file a counter affidavit in the injunction application till 26.7.2010. The allegation is that before filing the counter affidavit, the defendants forcibly evicted the plaintiff and his family members from the plaint O.P.(C) No.62 of 2011 2 schedule house. The plaintiff was, therefore, constrained to file application for an interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the property. The trial court allowed the application for interim mandatory injunction. The interim injunction granted was extended also. The petitioners filed appeal. The appellate court confirmed the order passed by the trial court. 2. The petitioners/defendants had filed a caveat in which they admitted that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the downstair portion of the building. The caveat was filed apprehending a suit at the instance of the respondent. In the present case, the petitioners raised a contention that the respondent was not at all in possession of the building and that the petitioners were all through out in possession of the building. The documents produced before court and the statement of the petitioners themselves falsified the story put forward by the petitioners. The court below considered all the relevant aspects in the case and considered O.P.(C) No.62 of 2011 3 the documents produced before court. It was held by the court below that the acts of the petitioners/defendants were high handed and that the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff was disturbed by the petitioners without any justification. Accordingly, the application for interim mandatory injunction was granted and the interim order of injunction was confirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to rely on some of the documents which are produced in the Original Petition as additional documents. The additional documents are not relevant at this stage. I do not find any ground to accept the additional documents at this stage. 4. The courts below considered all the relevant aspects of the case. The courts below considered the contentions put forward by the parties as well. There is no illegality or impropriety or jurisdictional error in the order and judgment passed by the courts below. There is no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. O.P.(C) No.62 of 2011 4 The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are findings and observations in the order and judgment passed by the courts below which may affect the interests of the petitioners at the time of trial. It is made clear that the findings and observations in the order and judgment are intended only for the disposal of the interlocutory applications. The suit shall be disposed of on the merits of the case and on the basis of the pleadings and evidence. The suit shall be disposed of untramelled by the findings and observations made in the order and judgment impugned in this Original Petition. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl