IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37408 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.5715/2009 IN OS.217/2009 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEJA, W/O.RAJAN, MAMBINGAL HOUSE, THANDILAM, VELLATTANJUR, THALAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHABU, S/O.MADATHUMPADY PRABHAKARAN, THANDILAM, VELLATTANJUR, THALAPPILLY. 2. AMBIKA, D/O.MADATHUMPADY PRABHAKARAN, THANDILAM, VELLATTANJUR, THALAPPILLY. 3. MOHINI, D/O.MADATHUMPADY PRABHAKARAN, THANDILAM, VELLATTANJUR, THALAPPILLY. 4. JAYA, D/O.MADATHUMPADY PRABHAKARAN, THANDILAM, VELLATTANJUR, THALAPPILLY. 5. ANITHA, D/O.MADATHUMPADY PRABHAKARAN, THANDILAM, VELLATTANJUR, THALAPPILLY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37408 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a direction to the trial court to dispose Ext.P5 petition under Order 39 Rule 2(A) violation of injunction petition forth with within a time frame. ii) Issue direction to take all effective steps to comply Ext.P3 order. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No. 217 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction. Respondents are the coplaintiffs and the others, the defendants in the suit who have resisted the suit claim by filing written statement. An advocate commissioner deputed by the court after conducting local inspection has filed a report and rough sketch. Pursuant thereto, on the interlocutory application moved by the plaintiffs for interim injunction, the court below has passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Petitioner has moved an application alleging that status quo order has been violated by the defendants W.P.(C).No.37408 OF 2009 Page numbers and so much so, they are liable to be prosecuted and detained in civil prison. Ext.P5 is the copy of that application. The limited prayer canvassed at the time of hearing of the writ petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the issue of a writ/order/direction to the court below for an expeditious consideration and disposal of Ext.P5 application. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Perusing Ext.P5 application with reference to copy of the plaint (Ext.P1) and other exhibits produced and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no direction from this court to the court below is called for. It is open to the petitioner to invite the attention of the court below to Ext.P5 application and seek appropriate direction in case the petitioner require emergent consideration of the application. Normally an application moved for prosecuting the opposite party as condemners of an order of injunction passed by the court in W.P.(C).No.37408 OF 2009 Page numbers a pending suit can be considered and disposed of only after taking evidence. If enquiry on that petition is proceeded by taking evidence separately before or after the trial of the suit, needless to point out, it will steal precious time of the court. If possible, evidence can be collected in common in the suit as well as the application for prosecution, but, separate orders have to be passed in the suit and also the petition for prosecution. That appears to be the more practicable and feasible method to be followed in such cases. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv