IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 24429 of 2007(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- HOTEL SKY PALACE, THAVAKKARA KANNUR REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.P.VASUDEVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAZHAPPADIKAL, KALARIVATHUKKAL, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- KAYATTIRAKKUTHOZHILALI UNION (CITU) HAJI ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, T.RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24429/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, KANNUR DT. 27.3.07. P2:- COPY OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, KANNUR IN IA.939/07 IN OS. 107/07. P3:- COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS. 107/07. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF OF KANNUR DT. 19.3.07. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, TELLICHERY IN CMA. 66/07 DT. 31.7.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.24429 of 2007 ===================== Dated this the 12nd day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent when the case was called on for hearing today. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.107 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kannur is the petitioner. The respondent is the defendant therein. The suit instituted by the petitioner is one for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, their men or agents or any person claiming through or under them from entering into the plaint schedule property and from resisting the permanent workers of the plaintiff from loading or unloading foreign liquor in the plaint schedule property or from committing acts of waste therein or in any other manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 3. In the suit, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.939 of 2007, for a temporary injunction in terms of the relief of injunction prayed for in the plaint. On the said application, the court below passed an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from causing obstruction to the loading and unloading work done by the petitioner by employing WP(C) 24429/07 -: 2 :- their own workers. The respondent entered appearance and resisted the application for temporary injunction. By Ext.P4 order passed on 19.3.2007, the Court of the Munsiff of Kannur allowed the application for interim injunction and made the ad-interim order of injunction absolute. 4. The respondent carried the matter in appeal by filing C.M.A.No.66 of 2007 in the Court of the District Judge of Tellicherry. The Court of the District Judge, while admitting the appeal passed an order staying the operation of Ext.P4 and the order of stay continued in force till the appeal itself was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 31.7.2007. By Ext.P5, the court below set aside Ext.P4 and remanded the application for temporary injunction to the trial court for fresh disposal. This Writ Petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P5. 5. This Writ Petition was presented on 9.8.2007. While admitting the Writ Petition on 10.8.2007 this Court had passed an interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5. The order of stay has been in force since then. On going through the pleadings and the materials on record, it is seen that the suit was instituted in February, 2007. Nearly two years have passed thereafter. The dispute relates to the loading and unloading of goods in a hotel. In view of the fact that nearly two years have passed after the suit was instituted, I feel that the parties should endeavour to have the suit itself tried and disposed of instead of focusing their attention on the interim application. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the WP(C) 24429/07 -: 3 :- pleadings and the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be allowed to do the loading and unloading work in the hotel without any obstruction from the respondent or their men, pending disposal of the suit. 6. In these circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions: (i) The Court of the Munsiff of Kannur shall endeavour to try and dispose of O.S.No.107 of 2007 expeditiously and in any event, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (ii) The respondent or its members shall not obstruct the petitioner from loading and unloading goods in the petitioner's hotel premises by engaging their own workmen, till the suit is tried and disposed of. Thereafter, the rights of parties will be governed by the decision of the court below, subject of course to their right to challenge the decision in appeal before the appellate court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 19/2