IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35725 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2759/2009 IN OS.29/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ABDUL LATHEEF , AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, NEDUMTHODU, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 2. FATHIMA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL LATHEEF MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, NEDUMTHODU, VENGOLA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASHRAF, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, VALLOPPILLY HOUSE, PURAYAR, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 2. BEENA ASHRAF, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. ASHRAF, VALLOPPILLY HOUSE, PURAYAR, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35725 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction which had been dismissed for default for his nonappearance. An application was moved on the listed day of the suit by the plaintiffs for adjournment, but, turning down the application suit had been dismissed, submits the counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for restoring the suit. Ext.P8 is the copy of that application. Till the dismissal of the suit dismissed for default, according to the counsel, an order of interim injunction was in force restraining the defendants from filling up the plaint schedule property. After the dismissal of the suit the respondents/defendants are taking steps to tamper and fill up the plaint property, is the grievance espoused in the writ petition for issue of appropriate direction/order restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with that property till disposal of the restoration petition moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs. I find that the W.P.(C).No.35725 of 2009 - O 2 visitorial jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for the relief canvassed. However, taking note of the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, there will be a direction to the court below to dispose the restoration application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs, as expeditiously as possible. Notice given to the counsel for the defendants in the court below on the restoration application shall be treated as sufficient for conducting the enquiry on that petition so as to dispose it expeditiously. Subject to the above direction, writ petition is closed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-