IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 18040 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1071/2010 IN AS.30/2010 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. JOSEPH S/O. KALLELI VEETTIL PAPPU, THIRUMUDIKKUNNU DESOM, KORATTY KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM. 2. ELSY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, THIRUMUDIKUNNU DESOM, KORATTY KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE, \ MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- ANTONY, S/O. CHENGINIYADAM DEVASSY, THIRUMUDIKKUNNU DESOM, KORATTY EAST, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680308. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) NO.18040 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendants in O.S. No.71 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chalakkudi and appellants in A.S. No.30 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda are the petitioners before me seeking interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext.P3, order on I.A. No.1071 of 2010 in A.S. No.30 of 2010. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction to restrain petitioners from running a poultry farm in the property of petitioners. According to the respondent, petitioners who were obliged to obtain licence from the local authority to run the poultry farm did not obtain any such licence and further, the running of the poultry farm is causing nuisance to the respondent on account of foul smell emanating from the farm. Petitioners contended that they are not running any poultry farm but only raising some fowl for domestic purposes for which no licence is required. Learned Munsiff recorded evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that it is a poultry farm being run without licence and that it resulted in nuisance to the respondent. W.P(C) No.18040 of 2010 -: 2 :- Accordingly decree for prohibitory injunction was granted. Assailing that judgment and decree petitioners preferred A.S. No.30 of 2010 in the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda asserting that they are not running any poultry farm but only raising some fowl for domestic purposes and for that, no licence is required. Petitioner wanted operation of judgment and decree in O.S. No.71 of 2008 to be stayed and moved I.A. No.1071 of 2010 for that purpose. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P3, order. That order is sought to be quashed in this proceeding. 2. I have gone through the order under challenge and copy of judgment of learned Munsiff. I have also gone through the discussion of evidence in the judgment. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is not required to interfere with Ext.P3, order since it is not a case where learned Sub Judge has either refused to exercise jurisdiction he has or exercised jurisdiction he did not have or there is any illegal exercise of the jurisdiction. As such interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is W.P(C) No.18040 of 2010 -: 3 :- not warranted. I make it clear that if the preliminary steps are over it will be open to the petitioner to request learned Sub Judge for an early disposal of A.S. No.30 of 2010. In case any such request is made learned Sub Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. With the above observation Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv