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. 17422 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJIDA, D/O. AYUB SAHIB, AGED 41 YEARS, SAJITHA MANZIL, MANAMPOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AZAD, S/O. ABDUL REHMAN, E.N.NIVAS, VETTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17422 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S 198/2008 on the file of Sub Court, Attingal. Respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. Suit is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale. With the suit the respondent/plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction to restrain the petitioner/defendant from alienating the property till disposal of the suit. The grievance canvassed in the present petition is that the application moved by the plaintiff for interim injunction after passing of an interim order despite filing of objections by the petitioner/defendant has not been taken up for consideration, but posted along with the suit. W.P.(C).No.17422 OF 2009 2 Petitioner seeks directions / orders from this court to the court below for an expeditious disposal of the above interlocutory application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the facts presented I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of the circumstances presented with reference to the materials tendered with the petition, I find the petitioner cannot seek for the relief canvassed in this petition as he could have sought the very same relief from the court below moving an application for hearing the interlocutory application stating the grounds, if any, thereof to persuade that court to advance the hearing of the W.P.(C).No.17422 OF 2009 3 interlocutory application in which an interim injunction was granted by the court. The injunction granted was only restraining the petitioner/defendant from alienating the property. If at all the petitioner has any grievance over that order he has to approach the court below inviting its attention that objections have already been filed to the application, seeking for early hearing of that application. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv