IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 968 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- OS. 13/2010 OF SUB COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ----------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- DOROTHY, D/O.MARY CELINE, B.PEREIRA, T.C.11/724, BELLAGUM BUNGLOW, DIVISION OFFICE ROAD, P.M.G.KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.ANANDA PADMANABHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. EDGER JOSEPH DENUJU, S/O.JOSEPH DENUJU, FROM T.G.27/1143(3), ERATHU LANE, HARITHA NAGAR, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT NIKUNJAM RHAPSODY APARTMENTS, FLAT NO.4B, CONVENT ROAD, KAMMOTTAM LANE,VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAN- 695 035. 2. ASHA CAREN EDGAR, D/O.EDGER JOSEPH, DENUJA, DO. DO. 3. AMITHA SHAREN EDGAR, D/O.EDGAR JOSEPH, DENUJA OF DO. DO. AYIROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIZH TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.968 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9 th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram against the respondents for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.135 of 2010 for temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the application by the order dated 23 rd January, 2010. The petitioner challenged the order in CMA No.22 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge dismissed the C.M.Appeal by the judgment dated 6 th August, 2010. The concurrent findings of the courts below are challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff in this Original Petition. O.P(C).No.968 OF 2011 2 2. The Courts below considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention put forward by the parties and held that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for the grant of injunction. It was held that there is no material to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property. The parameters of balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also taken note of by the courts below and accordingly, the discretionary relief of injunction was declined. On going through the order and judgment passed by the courts below, I do not find any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below made certain findings and observations which may cause prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff at the trial of the suit. The findings and observations were made by O.P(C).No.968 OF 2011 3 the courts below only for the purpose of disposal of the Interlocutory Application and those findings and observations would not be taken into account at the time of final disposal of the suit. With the above observations, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms