IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No.22576 of 2008(K) -------------------------------- OS.327/2006 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------- K.A. SUBAIR, S/O ABUBACKER, AGED 50 YEARS, SHOP NO.7, NORTH OVER BRIDGE SHOPPING COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI -11, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS:- EXT.P1:- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.327/06 EXT.P2:- THE NOTICE DT.14/02/06 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- THE CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER DT.11/07/08 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- W. P. C. No.22576 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 is Ext.P3 order of the learned Munsiff deciding issue No.1 in the suit against the plaintiff/petitioner and holding that the suit has not been properly valued. Ext.P1 is copy of the plaint and the prayer in the suit is to grant a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/their agents and officials (of Corporation of Kochi) from taking possession of shop room No.7 let out to the petitioner “by using force or other manner in the light of notice No.M.O.R3- 16587/77 dt.14/02/06, or any other communication thereafter”. The learned Munsiff has rightly found that the cause of action on the basis of which the suit for W. P. C. No.22576 of 2008 -2- injunction has been instituted is the issuance of notice No.M.O.R3-16587/77, copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. On the terms of Ext.P2, the petitioner is demanded to pay enhanced rent on the basis of a decision taken by the Corporation's council. The learned Munsiff took the view that by seeking a decree of injunction simplicitor what the plaintiff/petitioner was trying to prevent was the action of the Corporation to enforce recovery of enhanced rent on the strength of the Corporation's decision. In that view of the matter, the learned Munsiff found that the apposite provision of the Court Fee Act applicable is the proviso to Section 27(C). Having gauged the impugned order by the yardsticks which are applicable to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and having scanned Ext.P1 plaint and Ext.P2 W. P. C. No.22576 of 2008 -3- notice, I do not find any warrant for invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 for interfering with Ext.P3 order. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. However, the petitioner is given one more month's time from today to comply with the directions in Ext.P3. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE kns/-