IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6990 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.183/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.M.KOYA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKOYA, NOORIMASKAN, PUTHIYANGADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POST M.M.PARAMBA, UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, IMCH, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY & TREASURER, THE SUPERINTENDENT, IMCH, MEDICAL COLLEGE KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 6990/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DD DATED 26.9.2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.8395/08 DATED 12.3.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.8.2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN THE SUIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.2.2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT IN THE INJUNCTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.2.2009. EXT.P6: COPY OF I.A.NO.567 OF 2009 DATED 13.2.2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6990 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The first respondent filed O.S.No.169 of 2001 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode against the second respondent for a declaration that the tender issued by the second respondent in respect of the premises in which the first respondent is conducting business is unauthorised, illegal and void and for consequential injunction from evicting the first respondent from the plaint schedule premises. There is also a prayer for mandatory injunction to grant extension of time to run the business. 2. According to the second respondent, the first respondent was a licensee who was allowed to run the light refreshment stall in the plaint schedule premises. The period of the license was over. The period commenced from 11.10.1999 and the period was for one year. It would appear that the period of license was subsequently extended. The first respondent filed O.S.No.169 of 2001 when there was a threat for eviction. He WPC No.6990/2009 2 also filed W.P(C).No.8395 of 2008 when an attempt was made by the second respondent to call for fresh tenders. W.P(C).No.8395 of 2008 was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 12th March 2008 directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. That representation was considered by the second respondent and as per Ext.P3 order dated 16.8.2008, the request in the representation was rejected. Subsequently, the second respondent invited tenders. The Writ Petitioner was found to be the successful tenderer, who quoted the highest amount. Accordingly, the Writ Petitioner would be entitled to run the Vishramakendra Canteen of IMCH in the complex of Calicut Medical College at a license fee of Rs.1,21,000/- per month and to conduct the staff canteen at a license fee of Rs.18,900/-. The tender was finalised. The petitioner executed the agreement and deposited Rs.4,02,000/- with the second respondent on 26.9.2008. 3. In the suit filed by the first respondent, the trial court granted a temporary injunction. The petitioner got himself impleaded as supplemental second defendant. He filed written statement and counter statement in the application for WPC No.6990/2009 3 temporary injunction. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application for temporary injunction is not being disposed of by the trial court in spite of the fact that the application was posted on several dates. Now the application stands posted to 20.3.2009. The petitioner prays that there may be a direction to the trial court to dispose of I.A.No.1343 of 2008 expeditiously after hearing the application on 20.3.2009. 4. The respondents submitted that the second respondent has no objection in granting relief to the petitioner. The first respondent contended that he is a lessee and therefore, he is entitled to the protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is no ground to vacate the interim order of injunction. The petitioner is paying rent and he is entitled to continue so long as he pays the rent. It is submitted by the first respondent that the second respondent is not entitled to invite tenders as was done by it. The Writ Petitioner, according to the first respondent, is a person with whom he has no dispute and therefore, he was not impleaded as a party in the suit. The counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the plaintiff WPC No.6990/2009 4 being the dominus litis, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to apply for vacating the interim order of injunction. It is true that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. That does not mean that an aggrieved party is not entitled to get himself impleaded in the suit. The Writ Petitioner is an aggrieved party. His grievance was put forward before the court below and his application under Order I of Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the court. Now he is the second defendant. The Writ Petitioner/ second defendant is certainly entitled to contend that the interim injunction is liable to be vacated. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that he had served interrogatories on the second respondent and that before disposing of the application for temporary injunction, it is necessary to get the answers on the interrogatories. I have gone through the interrogatories. I do not think it is necessary to dispose of the application for serving interrogatories before disposal of the application for temporary injunction. Certainly, the trial court can dispose of the application for serving interrogatories before the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. But, the disposal of the WPC No.6990/2009 5 application for temporary injunction need not necessarily await the decision on the application for serving interrogatories. 6. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to issue a direction to the court below to dispose of I.A.No.1343 of 2008. The request is just and reasonable. As per Order XXXIX Rule 3 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Additional Sub Court-III, Kozhikode shall hear I.A.No.1343 of 2008 on 20.3.2009 on which date it is posted or on any other convenient date and shall dispose of I.A.No.1343 of 2008 on or before the date of closure of the courts for summer holidays. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl