IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 822 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.1084/2009 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.H. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -33. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.822 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is one among the plaintiffs in O.S No.1084 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. His suit filed with another as a coplaintiff seeking a declaration and injunction as against the respondent, a nationalised bank, alleging that he had not created any mortgage of his property for securing a loan from the respondent bank is not being taken up for consideration as that court is not having regular sitting is the grievance espoused in the writ petition. He has also moved an application for interim injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding against his property and also his person, and that interlocutory application is also awaiting consideration by the court is his further submission. A notice had been issued by the bank threatening of legal action is the basis for instituting the above suit and also the reliefs claimed in the suit and interlocutory application. A direction is sought for from this court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction compelling the court below to dispose of his interlocutory application filed in the suit expeditiously. W.P.(C).No.822 OF 2010 Page numbers 2. The respondent bank has entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the submissions made, it is seen that the court in which the suit of the petitioner is pending will have regular sitting at least from 13/01/2009 onwards. I do not want to express any opinion with respect to the merit of the suit or the application for interim injunction sought for to restrain the respondent from proceeding against the petitioner and also his property. Where by way of an injunction whether legal proceeding contemplated against a party can be restrained by an order of injunction has to be examined by the court below with reference to Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. For the time being there will be a direction to the court below to dispose the interlocutory application, after hearing both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE