IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26703 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.640/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.S.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SAHADEVAN, SECRETARY IN CHARGE, SREE NARAYANA SAMSKARIKA SAMITHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, S.H.COLLEGE JUNCTION, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK AND KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. V.SASIDHARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, HOUSE NO.186, SASTRI NAGAR, KOLLAM - 1. 2. DR.SHAJI PRABHAKARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, ARAMAM, PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.26703 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to direct the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 injunction application for temporary injunction, expeditiously and within a time frame that this Honourable Court may consider reasonable. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.640 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam. Suit is for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering with the management of the School situate in the plaint property described in the suit. Petitioner claims to be a Secretary of WPC.26703/09 2 the Samithy, which is in management of the School. It is the case of the petitioner that he is also the Manager of the School conducted by the aforesaid Samithy. An interlocutory application for injunction moved along with the suit requires consideration and orders expeditiously, is the case of the petitioner seeking issue of directions/orders to the court below for an expeditious hearing and disposal of that petition. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note ofs the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interlocutory application for injunction, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2, was posted after issue of notice for appearance of the respondents on 10.9.2009, on which day the respondents appeared and requested for adjournment to file objection. Petition now stand posted for objection and hearing on 24.9.2009. However, the respondents are interfering with the management and smooth administration of the School, and so much so, according to the counsel, there is every possibility WPC.26703/09 3 of the respondents seeking delay of hearing of Ext.P2 application. Whatever that be, it is open to the petitioner to submit before the learned Munsiff, the need for emergent orders on Ext.P2 application to have an expeditious disposal on the petition. In case, the petitioner seeks for an expeditious hearing and disposal, I find no reason why the learned Munsiff should not consider it on its merits and take up Ext.P2 application for hearing and disposal without delay. No direction or order is necessary at this stage to the learned Munsiff as canvassed by the petitioner for an expeditious disposal of the petition. Petitioner can seek appropriate directions/orders from this Court in case Ext.P2 application is not considered despite canvassing his submissions before the learned Munsiff for its emergent disposal. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.26703/09 4