IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35766 of 2009(O) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/11/2009 IN IA.7239/09,IA 7235/2009 IN AS.401/2008 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .............................................. PETITIONER: K.A.JOSEPH, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 57 YEARS, KUNIKAYIL HOUSE, INDIRA SMARAKA ROAD, VYTTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, VYTTILA.P.O, KOCHI-682 019. BY ADV. MR.M.P.RAMNATH RESPONDENT(S): 1. P.B.PAUL, S/O.PYLI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AMBANAPILLY HOUSE, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, VAZHAKULAM KARA, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, VAZHAKULAM.P.O. 2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No.35766 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.1270 of 2006 of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit was filed for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, and the respondents are the defendants. Suit after trial, was decreed which was challenged by the first respondent in appeal. That appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit dismissed. An application moved by the petitioner before the appellate court for issue of a carbon copy was rejected. The grievance espoused by the petitioner is that, attempts are now being made by the first respondent to tamper with the property taking advantage of the delay in the issue of the copy of the judgment and decree by the appellate court. The only relief canvassed in the petition is for a writ/direction/order to the District Judge, 6th Additional District Court, Ernakulam, to issue of a copy of the judgment A.S.401/2008, as expeditiously as possible and till then a W.P.C.NO.35766 OF 2009 2 prohibitory order directing the first respondent to maintain status quo. Petitioner had filed an application Ext.P3 before the court below, after the dismissal of the appeal seeking an order for maintaining of statusquo till he is given a breathing time to file an appeal. That application, it is stated, stands posted for 22/12/2009. 2. Notice given, the second respondent had entered appearance, I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, there will be a direction to the District Judge, 6th Additional District Court, Ernakulam to issue a copy of the judgment in AS 401/2008, within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The application for issuing of carbon copy moved by the petitioner (I.A.No.7239/2009) in revocation of the order passed by the court below shall stand revived for furnishing the copy as directed. The District Judge is also directed to hear and dispose of Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner/appellant within a period of three weeks from the W.P.C.NO.35766 OF 2009 3 receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Notice to the counsel appearing for the respondents in that application shall be deemed to be sufficient as due service for entertaining that application. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE nl