IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7842 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ HASSANKUTTY.P.K, AGED 43, S/O.KUNJUAHAMMEDKUTTY,PUVALLOOR HOUSE,JAYA NAGAR, KRISHNAPURAM,OLLUKKARA VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) MR.RAVI K.(PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ VELAPPAN.K.K, AGED 61, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, KULANGARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, POST AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 7842 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following reliefs are sought for. “i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the learned Sub Judge, Thrissur to provide a copy of the order passed in I.A. No.8348/2009 in O.S. No.1370/2009 dated 17.2.2010, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court, and for a reasonable period to keep in abeyance the operation of the said order, in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.1370 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, in which the prayer is one for dissolution of a partnership firm and ancillary reliefs are also sought for. Copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed WPC.7842/2010. 2 I.A.8348 of 2009 for interim mandatory injunction for return of premises and articles as noted by the Commissioner. Copy of the same is produced as Ext.P2. It is claimed by the petitioner that he had filed a detailed objection to the same. The matter was heard and orders were passed on 17.2.2010. Petitioner claims to have made an application for the copy of the order soon thereafter and his complaint is that he has not received the copy so far. In the meanwhile, the petitioners in the interlocutory application has taken steps to have the interim order implemented. According to the petitioner, that causes considerable injury and harm to him and unless he is able to get the copy of the order, he will not be able to take further proceedings. He prays that appropriate orders may be passed. 3. Certainly the petitioner is entitled to take such steps as are available to him in law against the order passed by the court below on 17.2.2010. It is averred by the petitioner that he had applied for copy of the order on 19.2.2010 and so far he has not received the same. If that is WPC.7842/2010. 3 the position, implementing the order is certainly injuries to the petitioner. Therefore, there will be a direction to Sub Court, Thrissur to issue certified copy of the order in I.A.8348 of 2009 in O.S.1370 of 2009 dated 17.2.2010 forthwith, at any rate within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and till then, the order shall be kept in abeyance. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.