High Court Kerala High Court

The Central Board Of Anglo Indian vs Percy Prakasia on 27 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
The Central Board Of Anglo Indian vs Percy Prakasia on 27 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4995 of 2010(O)


1. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF ANGLO INDIAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE UNION OF ANGLO INDIAN ASSOCIATIONS,

                        Vs



1. PERCY PRAKASIA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ANTONY FERNANDEZ, AGED ABOUT 63

3. VINCENT FERNANDEZ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

4. ANDREW LUIZ, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

5. MELVIN D'CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

6. BENNY D'CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

7. JOSEPH MAXY LUIZ, AGED ABOUT 64

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.C.JOSEPH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :27/07/2010

 O R D E R
                     THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
            ====================================
                     W.P(C) No.4995 of 2010
            ====================================
              Dated this the 27th    day of July, 2010


                          J U D G M E N T

This Writ Petition is in challenge of the order of learned

Additional Munsiff-II, Ernakulam on I.A. No.3534 of 2008 in O.S.

No.659 of 2008. That is an application for injunction to restrain

respondents-defendants from interfering with the affairs and

activities of petitioner, collecting amount from parents of students

illegally and without authority. Defendants opposed the

application. Though there was an interim order of injunction

learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed I.A. No.3534 of

2008. That order has been confirmed by the learned District

Judge, Ernakulam in C.M.A. No.58 of 2008. Judgment of

learned District Judge is under challenge at the instance of

petitioners-plaintiffs.

2. When this Writ petition was taken up for hearing

learned counsel for respondents-defendants submitted that the

suit was once included in the list for trial but on account of the

order of stay issued from this Court trial could not commence.

Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there are four other

connected cases pending in the court of learned Additional

W.P(C) No.4995 of 2010
-: 2 :-

Munsiff-I and to facilitate joint trial with those sits petitioners have

already moved the learned District Judge, Ernakulam for transfer

of O.S.No.659 of 2008 from the court of learned Additional

Munsiff-II, Ernakulam. According to the learned counsel if the

suits are consolidated in the same court trial could proceed.

Learned counsel for respondents states that respondents have no

objection in O.S. No.659 of 2008 being transferred to the court of

learned Additional Munsiff-I, Ernakulam. Since the suit is

otherwise ripe for trial it is not necessary for me to consider the

challenge to the judgment of learned District Judge in the

C.M.Appeal confirming dismissal of I.A. No.3534 of 2008.

parties can agitate the contentious issues in the suit itself. In the

circumstances I do not find it necessary to go into the contentions

raised in this Writ Petition. Learned Munsiff shall dispose of the

suit untrammelled by the observations in the order/judgment

under challenge.

With the above direction Writ Petition is closed.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv