IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3851 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- [IA.NO.1625/2009 IN OS.NO.334/2009 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SUKESINI, D/O.DEVAKI, AGED 55 YEARS, THEKKEVILA BUNGLOW, NEAR FENIX NURSERY SCHOOL, MURUNTHAL CHERRY, THRIKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SYAM J. SAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. YOHANNAN, S/O.CHAKKO, AGED 55 YEARS, THUNDIL PUTHEN VEEDU, NADUVILAKKARACHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 2. VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS, MAVILA VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 3. RAJU, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, EX-SERVICEMAN, KAILASATHIL, KILIKOLLOOR CHERRY, MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 3851 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction to the Sub Court, Kollam to dispose of Ext.P3 injunction application filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.334 of 2009. 2. The petitioner filed O.S. No.334 of 009 before the Sub Court, Kollam for specific performance of contract for re-conveyance of the plaint schedule property. An extent of 25 cents of property in Re. Survey Nos.373/5 and 373/9 of Thrikkadavoor Village was hypothecated to the 1st respondent. Various contentions are raised, which are not relevant for disposal of this case. 3. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the 3rd respondent trespassed into the plaint schedule property and caused damages to the property. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1625 of 2009 for interim injunction. Writ petition 3851/10 2 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court below is not disposing the Interlocutory Application and it causes irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioner. It is therefore prayed that appropriate directions may be given to the court below for disposal of the application. 5. The request made seems to be just and reasonable. It is pointed by the petitioner in the application that the 3rd respondent caused damage to the property and that he has no right whatsoever over the property. There is no justification for keeping the application for interim injunction pending by the court below. Therefore, there will be a direction to the court below to dispose of Ext.P3 injunction application as early as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.