IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7560 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.71/08 & 85/08 IN RCC.18/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RAVI VARMA RAJA, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI KURUMBANAD KOVILAKAM, SIVAPURAM VAMSAM KARIMALA DESAM, KOYLANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE RENT CONTROL & EXECUTION COURT (MUNSIFF'S COURT), KOYLANDY. 2. P. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.MOHAMMED ALIAS MAMMUHAJI, KOLLANKANDI, BALUSSERY AMSOM KOYLANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. K.N.MOHAMMED, S/O.ADRUMAN KUTTY KIZAKKE NANOTH HOUSE, BALUSSERY AMSOM KOYLANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. N.P. BEERAN, S/O.ABU, OZHIKIL VEEDU THALAKKULATHOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKKODE TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN – R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7560 OF 2008-Y ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. In E.P. No.26/2007 in R.C.C. No.18/2003, the petitioner filed a claim petition as E.A.No.287/2007. A copy of that E.A is produced as Ext.P2. Pending adjudication of that claim petition, he served Ext.P7 interrogatories on the landlord. But, Ext.P7 was dismissed by Ext.P9 order of the Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy. A related application filed as E.A. No.85/2008 in Ext.P7 was also dismissed by Ext.P10 order. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Exts.P9 and P10. 2. We notice that if finally the order in Ext.P2 claim petition goes against the writ petitioner, while challenging that order, he can raise the invalidity of Exts.P9 and P10, passed by the learned Munsiff during the proceedings. Every time the petitioner feels aggrieved by an interim order, he cannot be permitted to make a frog-leap to this Court. He should normally wait for the final outcome and if the same is against him, he can WPC 7560/2008 2 raise the grievances suffered by him at the interlocutory stage also, while challenging the final order. Only in very exceptional cases, this Court should entertain the challenge against interlocutory orders. We feel that this is not one of such cases. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/