IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18787 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.419/2008 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KALAM, S/O.ISMALY, AGED 51 YEARS, KURUDANPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD KARA, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRABOSE, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MARAMITTATH HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD KARA, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. JAMEELA, W/O.LATE ABDUL LATHEEF, AZHIVELIKKAKATH HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD KARA, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18787 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S No. 419/2008 is the petitioner and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit. Suit is one for injunction. With the suit the plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction and on that petition the court below ordered the parties to maintain status quo. Later the plaintiff moved another application alleging that the status quo ordered has been violated by the defendant/petitioner herein. From the submissions made, it appears, the Munsiff ordered for removal of the obstruction caused to a pathway. The parties were directed to maintain status quo by the order issued earlier. The grievance canvassed by the petitioner is that without giving him an opportunity to challenge the order steps are being taken by the plaintiff to W.P.(C)No.18787 OF 2009 2 execute the order. Registry was directed to ascertain whether any of the parties had applied for issuing certified copies of the order, and it is reported that both parties in the suit applied for copies and pursuant thereto they were directed to produce the sheets for issuing the copies. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has produced the sheets on 06/07/2009. The information collected by the registry shows that the plaintiff has also produced the sheets on the same day. There will be a direction to the court below to issue certified copies of the order applied for within a period of ten days from the date of this judgment. The order passed by the court in I.A 2364/2008 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today. The court below is directed to hear and dispose the application for injunction expeditiously as the order of status quo is likely to give rise to conflicting interpretations, and very often incapable of enforcement without further enquiry by the court as to what was the status quo W.P.(C)No.18787 OF 2009 3 when that order was passed. The order directing the keeping in abeyance of status quo order, shall stand vacated if the court disposes of the application for injunction itself before the expiry of the two weeks fixed by this court for keeping it in abeyance. Subject to the above direction the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv