IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28273 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.160/2007 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- HENRY,S/O.GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 48, AVITTAMPALLY HOUSE, PONEKKARA, ELAMAKKARA,EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE BY ADV. MR.BASIL MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.K.BEATRICS, D/O. KAKKAPPAN AGED 53, RESIDING AT KOLARIKKAL HOUSE SOURTH CHITTOOR, CHERANELLOR VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK PIN - 682028 2. SMT.THRESA XAVIER, W/O. XAVIER, K.V.KOLARIKKAL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. PIN-682028 3. K.K.AUGUSTINE, S/O.LATE KAKKAPPAN, REPRESENTED BY HER SISTER AND GUARDINA AND SISTER TRESIA XAVIER, KOLARIKKAL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, CHERANELLOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN - 682028. 4. JACOB M.J.S/O.LATE JOSEPH, MUTHIRAPPILLY HOUSE, EDEKKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE. KANAYANNUR TALUK PIN -682028. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28273 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To set aside the order dated 24.9.2009 and allow I.A.No.5861/2009 in A.S.No.160/2007 on the file of the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam.” 2. Petitioner is the first respondent in A.S.No.160 of 2007 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The appeal was decided against the decree passed upholding the counter claim set up by the petitioner along with the co- defendants in the suit. The relief allowed in the counter claim was negatived by the appellate court. The appeal was heard and disposed with another appeal as decision in two suits jointly tried and disposed by a common judgment, both filed by the same set of plaintiffs, arose for consideration. After disposal of the appeals, petitioner moved an application for maintaining the status quo as on the date of the disposal of the appeals stating that he intends to prefer a second appeal against the decision of the first appellate court. The court below dismissed that W.P.(C).No.28273 of 2009 - O 2 application vide Ext.P3 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. The fact that the petitioner intends to prefer a second appeal against the decision of the first appellate court cannot be considered as a justifiable ground to pass any order of status quo canvassed by the counsel without knowing what exactly is the status quo. The apprehension canvassed by the petitioner is that before the second appeal is preferred, respondents may induct strangers into the property and if that is done, the petitioner and other co-respondents in the appeal will be put to severe hardship. Whatever that be, as indicated earlier, without knowing what exactly is the status quo, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, it is not proper and appropriate for this Court to pass any order of status quo. However, there will be a direction to the court below W.P.(C).No.28273 of 2009 - O 3 to give copy of the judgment in the appeals to the petitioner, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above observation, writ petition is closed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-