IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29265 of 2008(H) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2235 /2008 IN OS.450/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.U.PHILIP, EDAVAZHIKKAL, TAZHATHANGADY PO., KOTTAYAM VILLAGE AND DISTRICT R/WITH P.J.JACOB PERUMACHERIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM POST, NATTAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOSSY PHILIP,EDAVAZHIKKAL HOUSE, KOTTAYAM, R/WITH HIS WIFE ANIYTHA JOSSY, JEWEL HOMES, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR MANGANAM KURISHU MUTTAMBALAM POST, NEAR KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM 2. K.K.JOMON, S/O.KURIAKOSE, KALLIDICKAL HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADY PO., KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C) NO.29265 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 6-10-2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 450 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The said suit is for a perpetual injunction against trespass etc. The plaint schedule property is claimed to be the house of the petitioner. The first defendant is the son of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is an abkari contractor. According to the petitioner in a revenue recovery proceedings against the first defendant the petitioner's house was sold in auction and the 2nd defendant is the auction purchaser in whose favour the auction was confirmed and sale certificate was issued. On 7-8-2008 the suit was dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. On 11-08-2008 the petitioner's counsel claims to have filed I.A. 2235 of 2008 (Ext.P2 petition) under under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. for restoration of the suit dismissed for default. On the same day, according to the petitioner the 2nd defendant auction purchaser trespassed into the plaint schedule property and started commits acts of waste. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 W.P.C. 29265 of 2008 -:2:- application (I.A. 2543 of 2008) to advance the hearing of the Order 9 Rule 9 petition, but the same was dismissed. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 petition filed as I.A. 2544 of 2008 seeking an injunction against committing waste has not been heard not orders passed. It is at that stage that the petitioner filed this Writ Petition to consider Ext.P2 restoration petition filed under Order 9 Rule C.P.C. and to pass orders on Ext.P6 application filed as I.A. 2544 of 2008. This Writ Petition is disposed of directing the court below to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. expeditiously and after hearing both sides. Until then there will be an interim injunction against the defendants from committing waste in the plaint schedule property. It is made clear that this judgment does not apply to acts of waste if any committed after the dismissal of the suit for default on 7-8- 2008 and till today. Dated this the 6th day of October 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) W.P.C. 29265 of 2008 -:3:- ani.