IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 358 of 2011(O) ------------------------ CMA.34/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THALASSERY OS.154/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------------- SREE KRISHNA KSHETHRA SAMUCHAYAM TRUST, REGISTERED OFFICE AT EP/VI-435,AKSHAYA,EDAKKAD AMSOM, KIZHUNNA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, K.P.SAJITH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.BHARATHAN NAIR, AAROODAM, PO, KIZHUNNA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- C.M.RAJAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE SEKHARAN, CHERUVAKKODAN MADAKKARA, AZHEEKODE AMSOM, DESOM, PO.NEERKKADAVE, KANNUR, PIN - 670 009. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.358 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27 th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.154 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thalassery challenges in this Original Petition the order passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A.No.911 of 2009 and the judgment passed by the appellate court in appeal in CMA No.34 of 2009 Sub Court, Thalassery. The first respondent filed the suit for injunction in respect of a property having an extent of 67 cents. The petitioner herein resisted the suit. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner trust obtained rights from three persons who are co-owners in respect of the property. It is also contended that the plaintiff was also a signatory to the agreement agreeing to transfer the property to the first defendant. O.P(C).No.358 OF 2011 2 2. The courts below held that the property belongs to 25 co-owners and of whom only the three persons have transferred their rights in favour of the first defendant trust. The courts below also held that the disputes involved in the case could be considered only at the time of trial. The courts below directed both parties to maintain the status quo. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not get the full rights from all the co-owners. The petitioner contended that a temple was constructed in the property on getting possession of the property. According to the petitioner, now what remains is the 'Prathistha Kalasam' and at that juncture, the first respondent filed the suit and obtained an interim order. 4. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the trial court and the judgment passed by the appellate court. The courts below considered O.P(C).No.358 OF 2011 3 the relevant facts and held that it is necessary to maintain the status quo until further orders. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there may be a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the respondent for issuing a direction that regard. The trial court shall expedite the trial of the suit after the steps are complete in the case. With the above observations, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms