IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1963 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1277/2011 IN IA.1187/2011 of VACATION COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.198/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER : -------------------- ABDUL SHAJAR, S/O. ASHRAF, ARAYALUVILA HOUSE, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SRI.K.M.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, YAMUNA, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA 695 002. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1963 of 2011(O) PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.15.12.2010 IN OP(C) NO.1162/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF COMMON ORDER DTD.28.3.2011 IN IA 403/2010 IN OS NO.63/2010, IA NO.453/2010 IN OS NO.72/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOTICE DTD.1.4.2011 PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE VARKALA UNIT OF THE KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHY. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.11.6.2010 IN WP(C) NO.6527/2010 EXT.P5: COPY OF FIR NO.400/2011 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER DTD.7.4.2011 IN IA NO.772/2011 IN CMA NO.7/2011 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXT.P7: COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.198/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA. EXT.P8: COPY OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PETITION IA 1187/2011 EXT.P9: COPY OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER DTD.16.5.2011 IN IA 1187/2011 EXT.P10: COPY OF REVIEW PETITION IA 1277/2011 EXT.P11: COPY OF COMMON ORDER DTD.16.5.2011 IN IA 1187/2011 AND IA.1277/2011 RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- O.P(C)No.1963 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P11 order dated 21st May, 2011 passed by the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, (Vacation Court) in O.S.No.198 of 2011 is under challenge in this Original Petition. The Vacation Court granted an ad interim order of injunction in favour of the respondent. The petitioner had filed a Caveat before the Vacation Court. However, notice was not issued to the petitioner and without hearing him, an ad interim order of injunction was granted by the Vacation Court against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Review Petition to review the order of ad interim injunction granted by the Vacation Court. By Ext.P11 order, the Vacation Court found that notice was not given to the petitioner/caveator and therefore, the order passed by the Vacation Court required to be reviewed. Accordingly, the Review Petition was allowed and injunction O.P(C)No.1963 OF 2011 2 petition was considered on the merits. The Vacation Judge passed the following order: 1. I.A.1277/2011 is allowed and order passed in I.A.1187/2011 on 16.5.2011 is reviewed. 2. In I.A.1187/2011, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as reported by the Commissioner in respect of the petition schedule premises till 10.6.2011. 3. Send entire records to the regular court immediately. The regular court shall dispose of I.A.1187/2011 on merits as the receipt of records expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from 4. The parties are shall appear before the regular court on 10.6.2011”. 2. The ad interim order granted by the Vacation Judge was operative till 10.6.2011. It is submitted that the learned Munsiff extended the interim order thereafter. 3. Ext.P11 order passed by the Vacation Judge is ad interim in nature. The learned Vacation Judge allowed the Review Petition filed by the petitioner after holding that the petitioner was not given notice before granting an interim order. To that extent, the prayer made by the petitioner was allowed. That does not mean the order of O.P(C)No.1963 OF 2011 3 injunction should be vacated. The Vacation Judge heard both parties and passed Ext.P11 order, the operative portion of which is extracted above. That the court has jurisdiction to pass such an order cannot be disputed. 4. The application for temporary injunction is not yet disposed of. It is pending before the trial court. As such, there is no ground to interfere with Ext.P11 order. The apprehension voiced by the petitioner that the ad interim order granted by the Vacation Judge would affect the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by him in respect of two other suits is without any merit. Those Civil Miscellaneous Appeals would be disposed of on the merits. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P11 order. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms