IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26920 OF 2008(D) -------------------------- CMA.13/2006 OF SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT: --------------------------- NEDUVILATHU PHILIPOSE, NEDUVILATHU HOUSE, PAYYAVOOR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYYAVVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PAYYAVVOOR AMSOM DESOM. 4. NIRAVATHU THRIPTHAN, CHENGALAI AMSOM DESOM, SREEKANDAPURAM.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. O.K. BALAN, C/O. KAYAKKIL PREMADAS, KUDIYANMALA POST, NADUVIL VAZHI, ERUVESSY AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.BINDU R. FOR R1 TO 3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 26920 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.192 of 2006 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thalipparamba. Respondents are the defendants. I.A.952 of 2006 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary injunction. As per order dated 26.7.2006, learned Munsiff dismissed the application. Petitioner filed C.M.A.13 of 2006 before Sub Court, Payyannur challenging that order. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that the learned Sub Judge exceeded his jurisdiction, as he has decided the suit itself in an interlocutory application and when under Ext.P7 order this Court granted an order to maintain status quo in writ petition 24119 of 2007, learned Sub Judge should have granted at least an order to maintain status quo and therefore WP(C)26920/08 2 the order is to be quashed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P6 order warranting interference. Petitioner did not produce the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing his application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. Ext.P6 order shows that learned Sub Judge considered the question of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury that may be caused and answered them against the petitioner and confirmed the order of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. When in a petition for temporary injunction, Court is to find whether petitioner has established a prima facie case, whether balance of convenience is in his favour, and whether irreparable injury will be caused if the order of injunction is not granted. When Appellate Court considered all these aspects, it is not for this Court to interfere with that order. Ext.P7 order was passed by this Court in writ petition 24119 of 2007. Ext.P7 order shows that stay of operation of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 writ petition was sought and it was granted till the disposal of WP(C)24119 of 2007 and it does not mean that petitioner is entitled to an order to maintain the status quo in the suit when WP(C)26920/08 3 prima facie it is found that his case is not correct and balance of convenience is also not in his favour. In such circumstances writ petition is dismissed. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit untrammeled by any observation in the interlocutory order passed by learned Munsiff or Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Court. It is also made clear that Ext.P7 order will not affect the dismissal of the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-