IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36468 of 2008(N) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2008 IN IA 2332/2008 IN OS.351/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- LEELA, PUNNAMOOTTIL KADAYIL, VENKULAM DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SREEJITH, K.S.SADANAM, VENKULAM DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SARASWATHI, K.S.SADANAM, VENKULAM DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. RANJITH, SREE BHAVAN, KANNAMBA DESOM, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 36468 OF 2008-N ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the widow of Swamy Visakhan who was judgment debtor in O.S.293/2003 on the file of the Musniff's Court, Varkala. It is submitted that the said Swamy Visakhan passed away on 30.7.2008 and that the third respondent herein who is the decree holder in the said suit filed E.P.6/2005 and the property belonging to Swamy Visakhan having an extent of 2.5 cents taking within it a shed wherein the said Swamy Visakhan along with the petitioner was having residence and was conducting a petty shop, was purchased in auction by the first respondent who has filed Ext.P3 (E.A.44/2008) for delivery of the said property to him based on the sale sannath obtained by him. The grievance of the petitioner highlighted is that in the meanwhile even before delivery is ordered the first respondent and his mother, the second respondent with the assistance of the third respondent is attempting to take possession of the schedule property and that though O.S 351/2008 is filed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and Ext.P2 injunction WPC 36468/2008 2 application was filed therein, the Munsiff, Varkala has not granted any ad interim order of temporary injunction but ordered urgent notice; that copy of the said order though applied for is not received yet; that the sale in favour of the first respondent is assailed by deceased Swamy Visakhan, the judgment debtor by filing C.M.A.61/2008 which is still pending and that in the event of the petitioner and members of her family being forcefully evicted otherwise than by an order in Ext.P3 (E.A.44/2008) the petitioner would be put to irreparable injury and hardship and that therefore, appropriate reliefs be granted. 2. In the result I grant injunction in favour of the petitioner and restraining the respondents from forcefully evicting the petitioner and members of her family from the schedule property and shed described in Ext.P3 otherwise than by obtaining an order of delivery in Ext.P3 for a period of one month from today or till appropriate orders are passed by the Munsiff on Ext.P2 (I.A.2332/2008 in O.S.351/2008), whichever happens earlier. This WPC 36468/2008 3 writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Issue copy of this judgment urgently to the counsel for the petitioner. K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE jj