IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 7725 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2008 IN CMA.25/2008 AND CMA .31/2008 OF SUB COURT, PALA, OS.76/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ASHOKAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, ELANJIKUNNEL HOUSE, KIDANGUR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. JALAJA, W/O.ASHOKAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- ZACHARIAS, S/O.CHANDY, RETIRED TEACHER, PARAEMPATTU POTTASSERIL HOUSE, KIDANGUR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD, MR.C.JOSEPH JOHNY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7725/2009-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 76/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DTD. 24/03/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFFS DTD. 30/04/1998. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT, DTD. 26/06/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE I.A. 554/2008 IN O.S. 76/2008, DTD. 24/03/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN I.A.554/2008, DTD. 29/03/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE I.A. 602/2008 IN O.S. 76/2008 DTD. 29/03/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE SKETCH AND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER DTD. 28/03/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, DTD. 11/04/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWING THE LIE OF THE DISPUTED PLOT DTD. NIL. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA IN I.A. 554/2008 IN O.S. 76/2008, DTD. 22/07/2008. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF PALA IN I.A. 602/2008 IN O.S. 76/2008, DTD. 19/08/2008. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALA IN CMA.25/2008 AND CMA 31/2008, DTD. 07/02/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7725 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records of O.S.No.76/2008 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Pala. ii. to pass an order setting aside Ext.P12 order and restoring Exts.P10 and P11 orders. iii. to pass an order staying all further proceedings in O.S.76/2008 on the file of the Court of Munsiff of Pala, pending disposal of the above writ petition and iv. to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be prayed for and which this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pala. Suit is one for perpetual WPC.7725/09 2 prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the defendant. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application for interim injunction identical to the relief claimed in the suit till its disposal. The application was objected to by the defendant who moved another application seeking an ad interim injunction against the plaintiffs contending that the suit property is absolutely in his possession and enjoyment. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, allowed the application of the plaintiffs and dismissed that of the defendant. Aggrieved by the orders so passed, the defendant preferred two appeals before the Sub Court, Pala. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides, allowed both the appeals by which the application for interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned Munsiff was vacated and the order dismissing the application of the defendant was reversed granting him an injunction as prayed for. Ext.P12 is the copy of the common judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge in the above appeals. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P12 judgment is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this WPC.7725/09 3 Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented and perusing Ext.P12 judgment, I find it may not be proper for this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the findings made in Ext.P12 judgment unless it is shown that such findings are perverse and unsustainable under law. Going through Ext.P12 judgment, I find such an opinion cannot be formed. Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved requiring adjudication by the court, I find a disposal of the suit at the earliest to give a quietus to the controversy is essential to advance the ends of justice. It is submitted that an application filed by the defendant seeking a mandatory injunction is also now pending consideration before the trial court. If the relief claimed in the application for mandatory injunction is proceeded at this stage, needless to point out, it would amount to granting a decree in favour of the defendant. So, in the given facts of the case, it appears WPC.7725/09 4 that the application for mandatory injunction as sought for by the defendant has also to be considered in the trial of the suit. So much so, the learned Munsiff is directed to give the suit top priority in hearing and dispose it as expeditiously as possible after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose the suit at the earliest, at any rate, before the closing the of the Christmas vacation. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp