IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 22309 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------- OS.1084/2005 OF PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 58, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KUNJU VEEDU, PIPINMOODU, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.S.V.PREMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, C44/950, SIVAPRIYA, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-17. 2. K.S.GIREESH KUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, NADUTHALA VEEDU, CHANDIYARA, POOJAPPURA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VALSALAKHINI THANKACHI, D/O.PADMAKSHI THANKACHI, NARAYANAVILASOM VEEDU, VENKADAMBU, UCHAKADA, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 4. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, KARTHIKA, BHARATH NAGAR, KACHANI P.O., ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.22309 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendant in O.S. No.1084 of 2005 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner. There was an ex parte, interim order of injunction passed against petitioner on 07.03.2009 on I.A. No.2314 of 2009. Petitioner preferred his objection to that application on 01.04.2009. Grievance of petitioner is that notwithstanding the time limit provided under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure that application has not so far been disposed of and in the meantime respondent No.1-plaintiff is going on filing petitions and compliance petitions one after the other, alleging violation of interim order of injunction and petitioner is being called upon to answer all those petitions for prosecution. It is also stated by learned counsel that notwithstanding the Advocate Commissioner's report that there is no such way in existence as pleaded by respondent No.1, petitioner is being harassed with applications alleging violation of interim order. Petitioner seeks a direction to the court below to dispose of I.A. No.2314 of 2009 at the earliest W.P(C) No.22309 of 2010 -: 2 :- and in the meantime to keep all further proceedings for prosecution in abeyance. 2. I do not think it necessary that proceedings for prosecution for alleged violation of interim injunction must be kept in abeyance. However having heard counsel on the difficulties allegedly being experienced by petitioner I direct learned Munsiff to dispose of I.A. No.2314 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv