IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6306 of 2008(A) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN IA.NO.640/2008 IN OS.112/2008 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER: ------------ T.P.ABDU, S/O.POCKER, AGED 42 YEARS, TOTTUMPURATH HOUSE, PANTHEERPADAM, KUNNAMANGALAM(PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 571. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ICICI BANK LTD., SHAFEER COMPLEX, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COLLECTION MANAGER, JAISHANKAR.K. 2. RAMLATH A., TOTTUMPURATH HOUSE, PANTHEERPADAM P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 571. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO 6307/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). Nos. 6306 & 6307 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT W.P.(C). No. 6306 of 2008 is preferred to direct the Munsiff Court-I Kozhikode, to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in connection with Ext.P5 application filed by the 1st respondent before insistence for compliance of Ext.P6 order. W.P. (C). No. 6307 of 2008 is preferred to direct the Munsiff Court-I Kozhikode, to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in connection with Ext.P6 application filed by the 1st respondent before insistence for compliance of Ext.P7 order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners in both cases. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the court below has granted a temporary injunction order without notice to them which will have the benefit of giving the ultimate relief in the suit itself. Therefore petitioners challenges it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I feel, Article 227 need not be exercised for this purpose for the reason that the Civil Procedure Code itself provides remedy for WPC Nos. 6306 & 6307/08 2 the party. When an ex parte order of injunction is passed, under Order XXXIX Rule 4, it empowers the court to discharge the order of injunction, vary it or set aside on an application made thereto if the party is dissatisfied with such order. I am informed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the matter has been posted on 24.3.08. I permit the petitioners to move an application to discharge, vary or set aside the order and the court below is directed to consider those applications after hearing the other side, as expeditiously as possible, so that the parties may have their grievance redressed. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC Nos. 6306 & 6307/08 3 WPC Nos. 6306 & 6307/08 4