IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36120 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------------- O.S. NO.475/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. .......... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. R.PRASANNAKUMARY, KARTHIKA, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL, ADOOR. 2. R.PARTHAPAN NAIR, DEVIKA, KADAKKADU MURI PANDALAM, ADOOR, AMPUVILA LATHEEF, SAKARIA MANZIL, S.V.MARKET P.O. BY ADVS. MR.SIBY MATHEW MR. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU B.PREMNATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- GOPALAN NAIR, PONKUNNATHU HOUSE, PRAMADOM, KOZHENCHERRY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36120 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S No.475 of 2008 on the file of Munsiff Court, Pathanamthirra. Suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Along with the suit, respondent/plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction as identical to the relief canvassed in the suit and the court below passed an exparte order of injunction. Petitioner/defendant on entering appearance filed objections to the application for injunction. The grievance espoused in the writ petition is despite several adjournments after filing of the objections and also moving for vacating the order of injunction, the application has not been taken up for consideration and disposed on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they have also filed a written statement resisting the suit claim and raising a counter claim as well. A report from the learned Munsiff was called for as to the delay in the disposal of the application for interim injunction in which an exparte order of injunction W.P.(C).No.36120 OF 2009 Page numbers had already been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In his report the learned Munsiff states that urgency in the matter of disposal was not brought to the notice of the court and so much so, the petition could not be disposed of till date. I am not satisfied with the explanation for the delay in disposing of the injunction application. The mandate under Rule 3 of Order 39 directing the court to make every endeavour to dispose an injunction application within 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted without hearing the opposite party, it seems, has been overlooked by the learned Munsiff in explaining the reason for the delay. There will be a direction to the learned Munsiff to hear and dispose of the injunction application within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE