IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4269 of 2008(G) ------------------------- OS.290/2007 of I ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- DR.M.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 47, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, SUJOSE HOSPITAL, THENOORKONAM, VIZHINJAM, RESIDING AT `PRATHYUSHA', CHOONDUPALAKA JUNCTION, KATTAKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. DR.JOZHI ENOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.MUJEEB BASHA, BEEHIVE OPPOSITE PETROL PUMP, CHOONDIKKAL, VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. MUJEEB BASHA, AGED 47 YEARS, BEEHIVE OPPOSITE PETORL PUMP, CHOONDIKKAL, VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.4269 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara in C.M.A.No.18 of 2007. It was an appeal preferred against the order in I.A.No.1996 of 2007 in O.S.No.290/2007. Both the courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction as prayed for and therefore rejected the case of the plaintiff. 2. I have perused the order and at this stage, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being two concurrent finding of facts, I do not want to interfere as this Court is not expected to do the same. I am satisfied with the orders that they are not perverse or illegal or irregular. But, considering the subject matter of the case, it requires urgent consideration by the court below. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by the observations contained in the order of the Munsiff or in the Wp(C) 4269/2008 -:2:- judgment of the Sub Judge. I also make it clear that both parties be permitted to produce documents which they rely on to prove their respective contentions. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-