IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27168 of 2008(H) -------------------------- (OS 546 OF 2007 AND 553 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM) PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.K.CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED 51, S/O.P.KRISHNA IYYER, FLAT NO 19, J M GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, KOCHI-23. 2. ASHA SEBASTINE, W/O.SEBASTINE, FLAT NO.35, J M GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, KOCHI-23. 3. JAYASREE S PRABHU, W/O.SUNIL PRABHU, FLAT NO.14, J M GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, KOCHI-23. 4. K.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.P.N.KRISHNAN UNNITHAN, FLAT NO.59,J M GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, KOCHI-23. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE J M GARDENS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, J M GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT B.RAJEEV. 2. THE J M GARDENS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, J M GARDENS, PALLIKAVE TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY VENUGOPALA MENON. 3. THE J M GARDENS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,J M GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-, REP.BY ITS TREASURER SANTHOSH. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 27168 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to District Court, Ernakulam to consider Ext.P5 and P6 applications filed in CMA 107 of 2007, an appeal filed against the order passed in I.A.4302 of 2007 and I.A.553 of 2007 filed by first petitioner and O.S.546 of 2007 filed by the other petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that under Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff granted an order of injunction prohibiting respondents from disconnecting the water supply and electric supply, but did not grant an order discontinuing the security services and disposal of waste and challenging that portion of the order, appeal is filed and in the appeal, Ext.P5 and P6 applications were filed as early as on 22.9.2007, but petitions are still pending and therefore learned District Judge is to be directed to pass appropriate orders in the applications. Learned counsel also submitted that Ext.P7 notice was issued by respondents, threatening disconnection of water supply from the WP(C) 27168/2008 2 borewell as nothing is stated about it in Ext.P3 order and therefore an order is to be passed restraining disconnection. 3. Evidently, the writ petition is filed as if to get a direction to learned District Judge to dispose Ext.P5 and P6 applications, to enable the petitioners to get an order against implementing Ext.P7 order. The proper remedy of petitioners is to approach either the trial court or the appellate court where the CMA is pending for an order restraining respondents from implementing Ext.P7 order. When trial court did not consider that aspect and appeal is pending, it is a matter which petitioners are entitled to agitate in CMA 107 of 2007. 4. Learned District Judge is therefore directed to dispose CMA 107 of 2007 and in any event Ext.P5 and P6 applications, as expeditiously as possible. To enable petitioners to approach the District Court, respondents are directed not to disconnect the water supply from the borewell, for ten days from today. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-