IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15740 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- CMA. NO.16/2008 OF SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA, OS.NO.188/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M/S.HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12/1624,BRISTOW ROAD,WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN-682 003,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-LEGAL M.V.H.MENON. 2. MANAGER,WALLARDIE ESTATES OF HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD,VANDIPERIYAR KARA,PERIYAR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.ANIL D. NAIR, MR.JOSON MANAVALAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. P.V.RAVEENDRAN,S/O.VELAYUDHAN,AGED 70 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL NURSERY,62ND MILE,VANDIPERIYAR P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. V.VIJAYAN,S/O.VELAYUDHAN,AGED 62 YEARS, CHAITHANYA,CHANNANIKKAD.P.O,KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.JOICE GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15740 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading to Ext.P6 judgment and to pass an order setting aside Ext.P6 judgment dated 13.2.2009 and confirm Ext.P5 order.” 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.188/2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Peerumedu, and the respondents are the plaintiffs. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants from forcibly evicting the plaintiffs and also from committing any waste in the plaint property having an extent of 10 hectares of land. Along with the suit, plaintiffs moved an application for interim injunction seeking an identical relief till disposal of the suit. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that under a licence agreement the first defendant company permitted the plaintiffs to carryout cardamom cultivation in 18 hectares of land for a period of one year. After expiry of that period, it is the case of the plaintiffs they have been permitted to retain possession over 10 hectares of land in which previously W.P.(C).No.15740 of 2009 - O 2 they had been granted permission to put up permanent structures also. The above case set up by the plaintiffs was stoutly denied by the defendants contending that the licence had been revoked and the possession claimed by the plaintiffs over 10 hectares of land after revocation of the licence is that of a tresspasser and they have no right to get any decree of injunction, leave alone the discretionary relief of interim injunction from the court. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, found merit in the objections raised by the defendants and the interlocutory application moved for interim injunction was dismissed. Against that order, the defendants preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Kattappana, and the learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, reversing the order of the learned Munsiff directed both sides to maintain status quo as reported by the commissioner in his report filed after conducting a local inspection over the property. The judgment so rendered by the learned Sub Judge is impeached by the petitioners/defendants in the suit invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.15740 of 2009 - O 3 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. After hearing the counsel at length and taking note of the facts and circumstances with reference to the materials tendered with the writ petition, though I find that some of the observations made by the learned Sub Judge in the inpugned judgment are unacceptable, it is seen, what is called for is an expeditious disposal of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in the order of the learned Munsiff or in the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge. Though the sustainability of the impugned judgment was doubted a material circumstance canvassed by the learned counsel for th respondents/plaintiffs appear to be relevant at least at this stage. Even after the expiry of the period fixed under the licence the fee fixed under the agreement was continued to be collected by the first defendant company, which according to the plaintiffs amounted to recognizing their possession as lawful and not objected to. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first defendant company would contend that acceptance of that amount would no way affect the rights of the company since no possession was handed over, but, only permission to carry W.P.(C).No.15740 of 2009 - O 4 cardamom cultivation reserving the right of the company to take all crops from the rest of the cultivation in the property. Whatever that be, the disputes raised in the suit require to be thrashed out in trial and, in the nature of the controversy involved, I find an expeditious disposal of the suit, after settling the issues and giving sufficient opportunity to both sides, is called for. I direct the learned Munsiff, Peerumedu, to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by any of the observations made in his order or in the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge in appeal. The writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-