IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23592 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.59/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.J.GEORGE,S/O.LATE C.P.JOHN,AGED 78 YRS CHAMMANAM,1/263,CHURCH STREET,COCHIN,COCHIN-1. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTELD BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,KOCHI TALUK,FORT COCHIN, COCHIN-1. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.23592 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records leading up to Ext.P3 and to set aside the same in so far as it imposes a condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of lease rent till the date of the appeal, for the purpose of granting the relief of injunction. ii. to grant such other further reliefs as may be prayed for and which this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi. Petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the State setting forth a case that he has perfected title over the plaint property WPC.23592/09 2 by adverse possession. That suit was dismissed as not maintainable. Against the dismissal of that suit, the above appeal was preferred in which an application for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also moved. The learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P3 order allowing the injunction sought for subject to the condition that the rent due from the plaintiff as a lessee to the Government, the entire sum thereof, should be deposited within two weeks from the date of the order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Govt. Pleader takes notice for the respondents. I heard the counsel on both sides. When a demand notice was issued by the State claiming rent from the petitioner for occupation over the land as a lessee, he has challenged that demand notice by way of a writ petition in which Ext.P1 order was passed by this Court that the petitioner has to pay 50% of the amount covered by the demand notice for interim stay of WPC.23592/09 3 the proceedings thereunder, is canvassed by the learned counsel to contend that the court below should have restricted the amount due in respect of the period covered by the writ petition only for the sum fixed by this Court. To that extent, the order passed by the learned Sub Judge suffers from serious infirmity, is the submission of the learned counsel, warranting its interference by invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. I am not persuaded to accept the submission made by the learned counsel. To protect his possession over the plaint property, he sought for the discretionary relief of injunction from the appellate court after the dismissal of his suit as not maintainable. Even if the questions involved in the appeal have some bearing or connection with the challenges raised against the demand notice in the writ petition pending before this Court, it cannot be stated that while exercising his discretion the learned Sub Judge has to restrict the amount to be deposited by the appellant in tune with Ext.P1 order. On the materials presented and the submissions made, the learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P3 order which in effect was one in favour of the WPC.23592/09 4 appellant, but subject to a condition precedent that he should deposit the entire sum due as rent as a lessee to the Government. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks extension of time fixed by the court below for payment of the amount. Taking note of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the counsel, period of four weeks time from the date of this judgment is granted, making it clear that the deposit if any, made, nor any of the observations made in this judgment shall have any bearing or reflection in the disposal of the appeal on its merits. Writ petition is closed subject to the above observations. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp