IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21746 of 2008(L) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.395/2008 IN CMA.8/2008 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.27/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR (IA.204/2008) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ INDIRAMMA, D/O.KAMALAKSHY AMMA, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE RESPONDENT: ---------------------- P.T.SUBHASH, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, ARAMPUNNA MURI, PUNALUR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 21746 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 27 of 2008 on the file of Munsiff Court, Punalur. Respondent is the defendant. Suit is for permanent prohibitory injunction. I.A. 204 of 2008 was filed by petitioner for an order of temporary injunction under Rule 1 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure. Under Ext.P3 order, respondent was restrained by an order of temporary injunction restraining respondent from trespassing into the plaint A and B schedule properties. Respondent challenged the order before Sub Court, Kottarakkara in C.M.A. 8 of 2008. I.A. 395 of 2008 is filed for stay of operation of Ext.P3 order till the disposal of the appeal. Under Ext.P4 order, learned Sub Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal. Ext.P4 order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Sub Judge relied on photocopy of the agreement dated 7.3.2007, WPC21746/08 2 which is not admitted by the petitioner, and when the original of the document was not produced it should not have been accepted and for the reliance placed on the agreement, learned Sub Judge would not have granted an order to maintain status quo. Learned counsel also argued the fact that respondent instituted another suit and sought an order of temporary injunction, which was refused by the Court, was also not taken into consideration. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order, which itself is only an interlocutory order passed in the C.M.A. directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal. If the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the reliance placed on the disputed agreement, that too a photocopy of the agreement without producing the original, petitioner is entitled to canvass the objection when the appeal is heard. Similarly, the fact respondent did not succeed in getting an order of injunction in his favour in a suit instituted by him could also be brought to the notice of the Sub Judge while hearing the appeal. Writ petition is disposed directing Sub Judge, Kottarakkara to dispose WPC21746/08 3 C.M.A. 8 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned Sub Judge is to dispose the appeal untrammeled by any observation in Ext.P4 order. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-