IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24338 of 2008(V) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2825/2008 IN OS.550/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- N.R.RAMASWAMY, S/O.N.R.RAMESHAN, AGED 54, 24/437, NEW STREET, NURANI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. NURANI GRAMA SAMUDAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT N.P.CHOODAMANI IYER, SREE SARADA KALYANA MANDAPAM, NURANI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 2. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 24338 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order passed by Munsiff Court, Palakkad in Ext.P5 application (I.A.2825 of 2008). Ext.P5 application was filed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure and also under Section 151 to stay the suit till the final disposal of writ petition 30442 of 2007. The case of the petitioner, defendant in the suit, is that subsequent to the filing of the suit and after disposal of R.S.A.505 of 2007 Government has taken possession of the alleged playground, though it is not a playground, and challenging that action writ petition 30442 of 2007 is pending before this Court where an order to maintain status quo until disposal of writ petition was passed and in view of the subsequent development even if a mandatory injunction is to be granted, defendants cannot comply with decree and therefore suit is to be stayed till disposal of writ petition 30442 of 2007. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that WP(C)24338/08 2 subsequent event of taking possession of the property by the Government and pendency of the writ petition challenging that action are relevant facts in the suit and as the right of the Government to take possession could be settled only in the writ petition 30442 of 2007 learned Munsiff should have stayed the suit till disposal of the writ petition as sought for. 3. On hearing the learned counsel I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Ext.P6 order. The relief sought for in writ petition 30442 of 2007 is not the relief sought for in O.S.550 of 2006. The question whether defendants could comply with the decree to be passed by the Court, if any, is not a matter to be decided in the writ petition. If the case of the Petitioner is that in view of the subsequent event, defendants cannot comply with the decree for mandatory injunction which may be passed, defendants are entitled to place that fact before the Court in O.S.550 of 2006. But that is not a ground to order stay of the suit as sought for under Ext.P5 application. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-