IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15435 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.12/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.650/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT I, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JACOB CHACKO, S/O.MADATHILPARAMBIL JACOB, AGED 56, KACHERI AMSOM, KURUMBRAKKATESSERY DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- YORK PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS P.LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.V.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.C.K.AHAMMED KOYA HAJI, AGED 52, SKYLINE BUILDERS, BAY WATERS, NR.BEACH POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15435 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) To set aside Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 orders and restrain the respondent from carrying out any further constructions including the plaint B schedule property therein. ii) In the alternative, to direct the court below to reconsider Ext.P3 application and to dispose of it in accordance with law.” 2. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 suit for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant, respondent in the writ petition, from putting up any construction encroaching upon plaint B schedule property and also from putting up any building in B schedule. The trial court as well as the appellate court declined to grant the request of the plaintiff/petitioner for an interim relief of identical nature as prayed for in the suit till its disposal. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the learned Munsiff and Ext.P4, the judgment passed by the appellate court in the appeal against Ext.P3 order by the Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order and Ext.P4 judgment are challenged in this writ W.P.(C).No.15435 of 2009 - O 2 petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. After hearing the counsel at length and perusing Ext.P3 order and Ext.P4 judgment, I find that this is not a fit case where interference with the orders passed by the courts below is called for to advance the ends of justice. I find that Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff and Ext.P4 judgment passed by the appellate court are proper and legal. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the suit to include additional reliefs submitting that after the institution of the suit, a wall had been newly put up by the defendant in plaint B schedule property. Plaintiff is free to file any amendment application and any such application, if moved, has to be disposed of by the learned Munsiff in accordance with its merit. Without observing any opinion on the merits of the suit and the amendment application proposed to be moved by the plaintiff, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn-