IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 1974 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- CMA.19/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.PRADEEPKUMAR, S/O. VASUDEVAN, PATTUVILAKOM VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGAM, KADAKKAVOOR.P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU., REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.KARUNAKARAN BLOCK PANCHAYAT V.ICE PRESIDENT,KADAKKAVOOR BLOCK KADAKKAVOOR.P.O.,CHIRAYILKIL TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUGATHAN, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, CHAMANDIVILAKOM, KADAKKAVOOR, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LAILA W/O. SUGATHAN, CHAMANDIVILAKOM, KADAKKAVOOR, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P)LTD. OFFICE AT ATTUKAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, WEST FORT, TRIVANDRUM REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,A.M.GOPALAN, S/O. A.M.CHATHU, SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO. (O) PVT. LTD., ATTUKAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, WEST FORT. tss W.P.(C) NO.1974/2010 4. SREE GOKULAM INVESTMENTS OFFICE AT MUTHUMANI STREET, MYLAPORE,CHENNAI, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR A.M.GOPALAN, S/O. A.M.CHATHU, RESIDING AT LIJISHA, KODAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SRI.M.S.KALESH, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.V.VINAY MENON. R3 & R4 BY ADVS SRI.K.S.BABU, SMT.N.SUDHA , SRI.BABU SHANKAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.19.74/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 5.7.2008. P2:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN ADDITION TO THE MORTGAGE RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,50,000/- (TWO LAKH FIFTY THOUSAND). P3:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY SRI.GOKULAM GOPALAN. P4:- COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SREE. GOKULAM CHITS. P6:- COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DTD. 10.12.2008. P6:- COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT FOR COWSHED DTD 21.2.2009. P8:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE TRANSFER OF RUPEES TWENTY LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 19.2.2009. P8(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 11.12.2008. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 650/2009 IN OS. 142/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ATTINGAL DTD. 30.5.2009. P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA. 10/2009 DTD. 24.11.2009 OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. P11:- COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.1974 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The second defendant in O.S. No.142 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Attingal is the petitioner before me. Respondents 1 and 2 filed that suit originally against petitioner and another for a decree for prohibitory injunction (learned counsel for petitioner states that respondents 3 and 4 were later impleaded in the suit as additional defendants). Respondents claim title and possession over the property and apprehending trespass by petitioner and first defendant, filed I.A. No.650 of 2009 for an order of temporary injunction. Application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff against which respondents 1 and 2 filed C.M.A. No.19 of 2009 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Attingal. That appeal was allowed by the learned Sub Judge as per Ext.P10. That judgment is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. When this matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the suit itself is ripe for trial it is not necessary for this Court to dispose of this Writ Petition on merit and it is sufficient that learned Munsiff is directed W.P(C) No.1974 of 2010 -: 2 :- to dispose of the suit untrammelled by the observations contained in Ext.P10, judgment. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The trial court is yet to decide the core issues involved and as fairly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the contentious issues in this Writ Petition. I notice that suit is of the year 2009 and if it is ripe for trial, learned Munsiff can proceed with the trial of the suit and dispose of the same as early as possible untrammelled by the observations contained in Ext.P9, order and Ext.P10, judgment. Writ Petition is closed with the above observations. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv