IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19887 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- IA. NO.308/09 IN AS.NO.80/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM, OS.NO.233/2007 & 235/07 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS JOHN,S/O.THOMAS, KOTTARATHIL, RUBY NAGAR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. MR. SAJU.S.A. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- DR.P.P.PAUL, S/O. POULOSE, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, PANANGATTU HOUSE, RUBY NAGAR, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. MR.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19887 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records in A.S No.80/2009 on the file of District Court, Kottayam and set aside Ext.P6 order so far as it relates to refusal of the prayer for stay of the decree in O.S No.235/2007, Munsiff Court, Changanacherry as far as the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction is concerned. ii) Pass an order staying the operation of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction passed in O.S No.235/2007, Munsiff Court, W.P.(C).No.19887 OF 2009 Page numbers Changanacherry, pending disposal of this writ petition. iii) To issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be prayed for and which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the appellant in A.S No.80 of 2009 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam. The appeal arises from a decree and judgment in O.S No.235 of 2007 by the learned Munsiff, Changanacherry. The above suit filed by the respondents was one for injunction both prohibitory and mandatory. Suit was decreed granting both injunctions. Aggrieved by the decision, defendants preferred the above O.P and in that appeal he moved an application for staying the operation of the decree of injunction. The learned District Judge after hearing both sides stayed W.P.(C).No.19887 OF 2009 Page numbers execution of the decree of mandatory injunction alone vide Ext.P6 order. The challenge in the writ petition is against the disallowing of the prayer made in the application moved by the appellant / petitioner to stay the operation of the decree of prohibitory injunction also which was challenged in the appeal. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P6 order, I find no impropriety or illegality in the exercise of discretion by the learned District Judge in limiting and allowing only stay of operation of the decree of mandatory injunction which was impugned in the appeal. On the facts presented and submissions made, the decree of prohibitory injunction granted in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs by the court below was found not liable W.P.(C).No.19887 OF 2009 Page numbers to be stayed. The decree of prohibitory injunction has been granted after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. That being so, operation of the decree of injunction cannot be kept in abeyance till the appeal is heard and disposed. I find no justifiable reason, to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the learned District Judge. I direct the learned District Judge to dispose the appeal as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above directions the writ petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv