IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27867 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2010 IN IA.3003/2010 IN OS.554/2010 MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA ................................................ PETITIONER: ----------------- SWAPNA, W/O.HAREESH KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, KOCHUTHUNDIL HOUSE, THEKKEKKARA MURI, CHAMPAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST PARTY, REP.BY ITS ALAPPUZHA JILLA SECRETARY, SRI.K.S.VENUGOPAL, AGED 56 YEARS, HAVING ITS JILLA COMMITTEE OFFICE, OPPOSITE FEDERAL BANK, MAIN BRANCH, PAZHAVANGADY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. K.K.SUBRAMNYAN, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK SECRETARY, REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST PARTY, RESIDING AT KEECHERIKATTUCHIRA VEEDU, THEKKEKARA, CHAMPAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27867 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Ext.P7, exparte interim order of injunction passed by learned Munsiff, Alappuzha on I.A.No.3003 of 2010 in O.S.No.589 of 2010 is under challenge in this writ petition. Grievance of petitioner is that in respect of the very same property he filed O.S.No.554 of 2010 against respondent seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction and on Ext.P2, application learned Munsiff passed an interim order of injunction on 04-08-2010, but, in respect of the same property learned Munsiff has passed Ext.P7, order against petitioner. That according to the learned counsel was not permissible or warrant and hence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is invoked to remedy what the learned counsel states a mistake committed by the learned Munsiff in passing Ext.P7, order. 3. It has been held time and again that when a statutory remedy is available to the party aggrieved, this Court is not required to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. An exparte, interim order of injunction is amenable to an appeal under Order 43 Rule1 W.P.(C) NO.27867 OF 2010 2 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See in re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh -AIR 1950 Culcutta 250 and Venkitasubbiah v Chellappan - 2000 (2) KLJ (NOC) 40). Petitioner has also the concurrent remedy of filing objection and seeking interim order (Ext.P7) to be altered or modified as circumstances warranted. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to entertain this writ petition. Petitioner has to seek the statutory remedies available to him. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek statutory remedy against Ext.P7, order as provided under law. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm