IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1149 of 2011(O) ------------------------- CMA.1/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.3117/2010 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ NARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN EMBRANTHIRI, SANKESA MANA, MULAYAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.C.ANTONY, ADVOCATE, S/O.CHAKKUNNY, NEELAMKAVIL PARAYIL HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- OP(C) No.1149 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March 2011 Judgment In this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following relies are sought for : i. Set aside Exhibit P4 order as it is an illegal and non- considered one. ii. Direct the trial court to hear and dispose of CMA Nos.1/11, 2/11 and 3/11 on the files of the District Court, Thrissur at the earliest within a time frame. iii.All other prayers which this Honourable Court deemed fit and apt to be allowed as and when prayed for. 2. The petitioner is the third defendant in OS No.317/10 before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur. The details of the suit are mentioned in the petition, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. It appears that the plaintiff had filed three interlocutory applications i.e., IA Nos.10834/10, 11342/10 and 10835/10, one for interim prohibitory injunction, another for temporary injunction and the other for interim mandatory OP(C) No.1149/11 2 injunction. The respondents filed a counter affidavit to the petitions. The court below, by a common order dated 15.12.2010, allowed all the interlocutory applications. Copy of the said order is produced as Ext.P2. Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals were filed by the petitioner before the District Court concerned as CMA Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2011. The petitioner claims that he has filed interlocutory applications in those appeals. His complaint is that neither the IAs nor the CMAs are being heard or disposed of. He, therefore, prays that the matter may be directed to be heard at the earliest. 3. In the light of ExtP2 order which has been assailed in the appeals, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is genuine. Whatever that be, the matter is pending in appeal before the District Court, Thrissur. It is for the said court to consider and take a decision on OP(C) No.1149/11 3 those appeals. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the District Court, Thrissur to consider and pass orders on CMA Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2011 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. If it is not possible to pass final orders on the CMAs before vacation, the respective IAs may be heard and disposed of at the earliest. The OP(C) is disposed of as above. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta OP(C) No.1149/11 4