IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 7577 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- CMA.77/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.279/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SOMAN NADAR,THENGOTTUKOTTU THEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VILAVOORKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN MR.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, S/O.SUBRAMONIAN NADAR S.P.BUILDINGS, VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue appropriate writ direction or order to quash Ext.P2 and P3 orders passed by the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram and Principal District Court, Thiruvananthapuram or on the alternative direct the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram to hear and pass appropriate orders de-novo pending disposal of the writ petition. W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009 Page numbers ii) Grant such other relief that are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No. 279 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale and the respondent is the defendant. In the above suit the respondent / defendant moved an application for interim injunction which after hearing both sides was allowed by the learned Munsiff. Petitioner challenged that order by preferring an appeal before the District Court, but the order of the learned Munsiff was confirmed dismissing the appeal. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of the judgment rendered by the appellate court the writ petition has been filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs invoking the W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009 Page numbers supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P3 judgment impugned in the petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some observations in Ext.P3 judgment rendered by the learned Munsiff are likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner, and it may influence the mind of the trial judge while disposing the suit on merit, I find no reason for such an apprehension because the observations or opinions expressed in orders in interlocutory proceedings in a suit will not have any reflection in the final disposal of the suit, which has to be done on the basis of the materials W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009 Page numbers to be tendered in the case. However, to alley the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations in his order or Ext.P3 judgment rendered by the learned District Judge. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv