IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19001 of 2008(K) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.432/2008 IN OS.38/2007 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PONNANI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VELAYUDHAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, VARIYATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, KALADY AMSOM DESOM, PONNANI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- KOCHY, D/O.CHATHAPPAN, AGED 61 YEARS, KALADY AMSOM, DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19001 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Additional third defendant in O.S.No.38/2007, on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Ponnani, is the petitioner, and respondent the plaintiff. Respondent originally instituted the suit against two defendants. An order of injunction was passed against them in I.A.No.183/2007, restraining them from doing any construction work in the property. It is thereafter petitioner was impleaded as third defendant. I.A.No.432/2008 was thereafter filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. The petition was posted for objection to 22.5.2008. On that date, no objection was filed. Learned Munsiff heard the counsel appearing for the respondent, as well as the petitioner. As per the order dated, 22.5.2008, finding that petitioner is an assignee from first defendant and as against the construction, an order of injunction was granted in I.A.No.183/2007, learned Munsiff directed the parties to maintain status quo as noted by the Commissioner. Petition was posted for filing objection to 27.5.2008, on which date also, no W.P.(C) No.19001/2008 2 objection was filed by the petitioner, and it was thereafter posted to 2.6.2008. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order passed by the trial court on 22.5.2008. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Munsiff. The order dated 22.5.2008 was not passed after resolving a prima facie satisfaction of the case. Instead court found that though petition was posted for objection, petitioner did not file any objection and an order of injunction was earlier passed against other defendants, including the assignor of petitioner. It is in such circumstances, Munsiff directed the parties to maintain status quo and posted the case for filing objection of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to file an objection and seek a final order in that application. When I.A.No.432/2008 is finally disposed, petitioner is entitled to challenge that order, if it goes against him, as provided under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.