IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24672 of 2009(O) -------------------------- O.S.NO.155/08 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSHY KURIAKOSE, AGED 34, YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, THETTIKETTUMOLATH HOUSE, RESIDING AT KALATHIKKUDIYIL HOUSE, METHALA KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GEORGE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. ITTEERA, CHERADIYIL HOUSE, METHALA KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. POULOSE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. ITTEERA, CHERADIYIL HOUSE, METHALA KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.24672 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: I. to issue a writ or order setting aside Exts.P2 and P3 and allow Ext.P1 petition for mandatory injunction. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.155 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor, and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. With the suit, plaintiff moved an application for interim mandatory injunction which was declined by the learned Munsiff. Against which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, but, that too was dismissed. Writ petition is filed challenging the propriety and correctness WPC.24672/09 2 of the orders passed by the learned Munsiff and also judgment rendered by the appellate court declining the request of the plaintiff for interim mandatory injunction. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. Perusing Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Munsiff and Ext.P3 judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, I find it may not be proper and appropriate for this Court to examine the merit of the petitioner's case when two inferior courts have concurrently found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the discretionary relief of interim mandatory injunction. It is also reported that the suit is ripe for trial. The learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible untrammelled by any of the observations in his judgment or Ext.P3 judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case. WPC.24672/09 3 Writ petition is disposed subject to the above direction. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp