IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27670 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA. 2479 /2009 IN CMA.120/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.280/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.K.VENUGOPAL,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS,WATCH REPAIRER,KURUMBOOR HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN MR.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SRI.PRADEEP,S/O.PONNARASSERY MADHAVAN, BUSINESS,SASTHA COPY WORLD,OPPOSITE TO KUNNAMKULAM BUS STAND,P.O.,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. MR.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 MR.LEO GEORGE FOR R1 MR.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R1 MR.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR R1 MS.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R1 MS.M.SRUTHY FOR R1 MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27670 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ORDER IN I.A.NO.1307/2009 IN O.S.NO.280/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 13.8.2009. EXT.P2: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THAT APPLICATION VIZ. I.A.NO.4090/09 IN O.S.NO.280/009 DTED 24.9.2009. EXT.P3: ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT IN I.A.NO.4090/2009 IN O.S.NO.280/2009 DTED 25.9.2009. RESPOJNDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27670 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To stay and suspend the order of interim stay granted by the 1st Additional District Court, Thrissur in I.A.No.2479/2009 in C.M.A.No.120/2009 dated 14.9.2009 pending disposal of the above writ petition.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.280 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Suit is one for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, and the second defendant in the suit is the local authority. In the suit on the application moved by the plaintiff after hearing both sides the learned Munsiff passed an interim order of injunction against the defendants. Ext.P1 is the copy of that order. The grievance now canvassed in the writ petition is that the first defendant preferred an appeal against Ext.P1 order, numbered as C.M.A.No.120 of 2009, and in which without notice to the petitioner an order staying the operation of Ext.P1 was passed and pursuant to that order steps are being taken to alter the status quo over the plaint property. W.P.(C).No.27670 of 2009 - O 2 3. Notice on the writ petition being ordered by special messenger both respondents have entered appearance. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner could have very well moved the lower appellate forum and canvassed his grievance. Invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without even raising a challenge in respect of the order of stay granted by the lower appellate court, according to the counsel, was not proper and correct. No sufficient ground has been made out to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, is the further submission of the counsel. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after getting a stay order from the appellate court, steps were taken by the first respondent to alter the status quo and thereby setting at naught the discretionary relief granted under the interim order of injunction passed by the trial court. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented I find it will be inappropriate and improper for this Court to express any opinion or view on the W.P.(C).No.27670 of 2009 - O 3 disputed questions canvassed, which, no doubt, have to be addressed before the lower appellate court where the appeal is pending. In case the status quo order has been altered, after obtaining the stay order, it is a matter to be gone into by the lower appellate court and if that be so, then, necessarily appropriate orders have to be passed subject to the decision to be rendered in the appeal preferred against Ext.P1 order passed by the trial court. I direct the learned District Judge before whom the C.M.A.No.129 of 2009 is pending to give the appeal top priority in hearing and dispose that appeal, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to point out the observations made above shall be taken into consideration by the court while disposing the appeal in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Send a copy of he judgment to the counsel on both on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-