IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18703 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- CMA.NO.88/2006 OF II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD, OS.NO.415/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M.P.MADHUSUDHANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. P. KUMARANKUTTY MANNADIAR, VITHANASSERY, NEMMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. P.PRAKSSH MENON, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. N.T.UNNI, POOKKOTE HOUSE, VITHANASSERY, NEMMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.N.RAGHURAJ, MR.A.V.RAVI, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- POOKOY VIJAYAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. VASU NAIR, POOKOT HOUSE, VITHANASSERY, NEMMARA. BY ADV. MR.B.PREMNATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.18703 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to quash/set aside Ext.P5 judgment; ii. to award to the petitioners the costs of these proceedings and iii. to grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary or may be prayed for. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.415 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur and the respondent, the plaintiff. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from changing the name of a temple. The disputed question in the suit is over the changing of the name of a temple, which is known as “Vithanassery Pookkot WPC.18703/09 2 Ayyappan Kavu”. Plaintiff laid the suit alleging that the defendants want to change the name of the temple as “Pookot Ayappan Kavu”. The defendants have no right to change the name of the temple is the basis of the suit claim. The defendants filed a written statement disputing the suit claim. The plaintiff along with the suit had filed an application for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from changing the name of the temple till its disposal. That application being dismissed by the trial court, an appeal was preferred. The appellate court, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal restraining the defendants by an order of injunction from changing the name of the temple. Ext.P5 is the copy of that judgment. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 judgment is impeached in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find the disputed question WPC.18703/09 3 which requires to be adjudicated in the suit need not be examined threadbare by this Court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction. I find that an early disposal of the suit is essential to give a quietus to the whole controversy and, further, to meet the ends of justice. The learned Munsiff, Chittur is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously, untrammelled by any of the observations made in Ext.P4 order of that court or Ext.P5 judgment of the appellate court, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case, at any rate, before the closing of the courts in the Christmas vacation. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp