IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13738 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2009 IN IA. 497/2009 IN CMA.11/2009 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: --------------- DR.SANJEEV M.LAZER,AGED 43, S/O.LATE DR.A.M.LAZAR,RESIDING AT PASSOVER, KOVVALPPALLY,KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEVARAJ BANGERA,AGED 62,BISHOP/CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA SOUTHERN DIOCES EDUCATION SOCIETY, BALMATTA,MANGALORE,DK DISTRICT,KARNATAKA. 2. KARNATAKA SOUTHERN DIOCESE EDUCATION SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.SHASIPAL SHETTIAN,CSI DIOCESAN OFFICE, BALMATTA,MANGALORE. ADV. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13738 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ORDER DTD. 31.3.2009 IN I.A.NO.1042/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG. EXT.P2: JUDGMENT DATED 8.1.2008 IN O.S.NO.27/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG. EXT.P3: JUDGMENT DATED 2.7.2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.4721/2007. EXT.P4: ORDER DATED 8.4.2009 IN I.A.NO.497/2009 IN C.M.A.NO.11/2009 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, HOSDURG. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13738 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st 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 call for records relating to the case leading up to Ext.P4 and quash Ext.P4. ii) To declare that Ext.P4 order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the Subordinate Judge's court, Hosdurg in I.A.No.497/2009 in C.M.A.No.11/2009 is illegal and without jurisdiction.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.137/2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg in which he sought for a perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from the management of a school. With the suit, he moved an application for interim injunction for identical relief. An ex-parte order of injunction was passed by the learned Munsiff and the petition was posted to 4.4.2009 for appearance of the counter W.P.(C).No.13738 of 2009 - O 2 petitioners and objectors. On 4.4.2209 respondents entered appearance and filed counter. Interim application was posted to 17.6.2009. Since the mid summer vacation was to ensue the respondents preferred an appeal as C.M.A.No.11/2009 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg, challenging the ex-parte order of injunction. Without notice to the petitioner/plaintiff in the appeal, the learned Sub Judge passed an order staying the ex-parte order of injunction. Ext.P4 is that order. Impeaching the correctness of Ext.P4 order contending that it is not proper and legal, petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. It is submitted that the appeal pending before the learned Sub Judge is posted for hearing on 3.6.2009. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved and also the submissions made at the bar, I find that an early disposal of C.M.A pending before the Sub Court, Hosdurg and in the light of the decision likely to be passed thereunder, interim application moved by the plaintiff before the Munsiff court, Hosdurg, which is W.P.(C).No.13738 of 2009 - O 3 still pending, is necessary to advance the ends of justice. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case, in respect of which both sides have canvassed different versions before me. I direct the learned Sub Judge to hear and dispose of C.M.A.No.11/2009 within a span of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in case the appeal is not already heard on 3.6.2009. The learned Sub Judge shall take note while considering the C.M.A. that both parties have not been given any opportunity to advance their respective cases before the court below on the merits of the application for injunction, and as such, it is desirable that a decision by the trial court on the application is essential to satisfy equity and justice. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-