IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12358 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- OS.134/2006 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- DR.A.P.SHAMSIYA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE A.P. KOYALIKUTTY, W/O.ADV.P.K.ABDUL LATHEEF, 'FATHIMAS' MANJERI AMSOM & DESOM, KARUVAMBRAM POST, ERANAD THALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SAIBUNISA N., AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.KUNHALANKUTTY MASTER, HENNAN VOTTAGE, HOUSE COLONY, P.O.MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.12358 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 8th April 2010 Judgment Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Sub Court Manjeri in IA No.196/10 in OS No.134/06, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. IA No.196/10 was filed by the husband of the petitioner for perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 4 from indulging in the commission of any acts of mischief causing disturbances to the plaintiff. Various facts are mentioned in the Writ Petition, which are not relevant for the present purpose. 3. The Court below on consideration of the IA, found that there is nothing to show that the dispute involved is a dispute between defendants 3 and 5 and accordingly dismissed the petition. WPC 12358/10 2 4. On going through the records, it is found that the Court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the IA. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the order passed by the Court below will have some bearing on the issues involved in the suit and the petition sought to have been allowed. 6. Except for the above contention, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said contention. The Court below has discussed the matter in detail and has come to a conclusion that the petition is baseless. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 12358/10 3 WPC 12358/10 4