IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 1112 of 2010(O)
1. P.VIJAYAMOHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BALAKRISHNAN SURENDRAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
O.P(C).No.1112 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 10th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Respondent No.1 claimed title and possession over the suit
property as per a sale deed executed by petitioner on 17-06-2006
regarding undivided half share of petitioner. He claimed that
later he has obtained a correction deed executed by petitioner on
12-01-2009. Following that, there was a partition of the property
and respondent No.1 got his half share, 20 cents (described in
the plaint schedule) to his possession. He filed O.S.No.100 of
2010 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara for a
decree for prohibitory injunction and other reliefs against
petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6. Petitioner filed written
statement and counter claim contending that there was no sale in
favour of respondent No.1 and that for the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
borrowed from respondent No.1 a sale deed was executed as
security and later, as requested by respondent No.1 petitioner
happened to execute a correction deed also. Petitioner claimed
to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. Respondent
No.1 filed application for temporary injunction. That was
opposed by petitioner. There was an interim order of injunction
O.P(C).No1112 of 2010
: 2 :
which after hearing both sides learned Sub Judge extended till
disposal of the suit as per order dated 30-11-2010. There was
also an application for enforcement of the order of injunction
(Ext.P4, I.A.No.1889 of 2010) with police assitance. That
application was allowed vide order dated 08-12-2010 after
hearing both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders. It
is contended that though copies of orders dated 30-11-2010 and
08-12-2010 were applied for, it has not so far been issued to the
petitioner. Apprehension of petitioner is that with police
assistance respondent No.1 might dispossess him. Hence,it is
prayed that operation of the order dated 08-12-2010 be kept in
abeyance until disposal of this petition. Learned counsel
contended that respondent No.1 is a money lender and that
petitioner has already filed O.S.No.235 of 2009 for cancellation of
the sale deed.
2. Certainly, if petitioner has applied for copy of the
orders it must be issued to him at the earliest but the further
relief for keeping the order dated 08-12-2010 in abeyance cannot
be allowed since that order was passed after learned Munsiff
came to the prima facie satisfaction that respondent No.1 is in
possession of the suit property and granted temporary injunction
O.P(C).No1112 of 2010
: 3 :
till disposal of the suit on 30-11-2010. Proper remedy available
to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned orders in the
appropriate forum. Hence interim relief prayed for cannot be
granted. Learned Sub Judge is directed to issue copy of the
orders dated 30-11-2010 and 08-12-2010 to the petitioner if it is
applied for at the earliest and at any rate within a week from the
production of a copy of this judgment.
This petition is disposed of as above.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-