IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7080 of 2009(O) ------------------------- CMA.102/2008 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1142/2008 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.ANTONY, S/O.KOCHU VARUNNI, AGED 58 YEARS, FEMI MEDICALS, VADAKKUMCHERRY, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANTONY THARIAN, S/O.LATE T.V.THARIAN, TRUST PHARMACEUTICALS, KAYYATH LANE, POONITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.P.GAFOOR, S/O.M.P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SOORYA MEDICALS, I.G.ROAD, CALICUT-4. 3. BABU SITHARA, SITHARA MEDICALS, VENJARAMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.SIVANANDAN, MEYON TRADE LINKS, JAIL ROAD, CALICUT. 5. C.P.KUNJU MOIDU, CENTRAL PHARMA AGENCIES, JAIL ROAD, KANNUR. 6. C.A.VINCENT, S/O.ANTONY, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O., IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR. 7. ALL KERALA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION, A SOCIETY REGD. UNDER ACT XIX OF 1955 WITH REG.NO.ER-21 OF 1973,REGD.OFF:CHEMISTS BHAVAN CHAVARA, CENTRE ROAD, KOCHI-15, REP. BY K.SIVASANKARAN, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, CHERUVARA HOUSE MUKKATTUKARA, THRISSUR. WPC.7080/09 8. T.P.KRISHNAN, S/O.CHERIYATHEE, VEENKHALATHUKANDI, PERUVATTUR, KOYLANDI. 9. T.K.SOMAN, S/O.KANDANKUNJU, THE PROPRIETOR, TEE-KAY MEDICALS, KUTHIATHODE, ALAPPUZHA. 10. K.P.PAUL, PAULSON MEDICALS, NEAR MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SMT.ALTHIA EDWINA ROZARIO FOR R1-5&10 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R7 SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R6 SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB FOR R6 SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN FOR R9 SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR FOR R9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.7080/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.7250/2008 IN O.S.NO.1142/08 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMA.NO.102/08 ON THE FILE OF THE VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7080 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Concurrent decisions rendered by two inferior courts that the plaintiff in O.S.No.1142 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, which, later, has been transferred to Sub Court, Ernakulam and renumbered as O.S.No.355 of 2009 on the file of that Court, is entitled to the discretionary relief of interim injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 8 from operating the bank accounts of the 1st defendant Association and convening any meeting of that defendant till disposal of the suit, is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Rival claims over the administration of the 1st defendant, an Association, by two sects for control over the Association has given rise to the suit. Both WPC.7080/09 2 the courts below on the materials placed have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the equitable relief of interim injunction to restrain the defendants 2 to 8 from interfering with his right to administer the affairs of the Association. Perusing the orders of the learned Munsiff and also that of the learned District Judge, it is seen that both the courts have found the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff apart from holding that denial of the interim relief canvassed would cause him irreparable injury. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the observations made by the courts below relate to disputed issues involved in the suit and at any rate, such observations should not have any reflection of the suit in its trial on merits. Needless to point out, that the observations or findings made in an interlocutory proceeding shall have no bearing or reflection in the adjudication of the suit on its merits. I find no infirmity leave alone jurisdictional infirmity to unsettle the concurrent findings entered by the two courts below that the plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. However, there will be a WPC.7080/09 3 direction to the Sub Court, Ernakulam to dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made by the learned Munsiff and also the learned District Judge, as expeditiously as possible, after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case. Writ petition is accordingly closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.7080/09 4