IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34458 of 2008(B)
1. JOJO P. GEORGE, PRATHEEKSHA, KRA A 5 A,
... Petitioner
2. JANCY JOJO,
Vs
1. HARI PANIKKAR, LOTTUS GARDENS,
... Respondent
2. CHITHRA PANIKKAR,. NO. 461,
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :21/11/2008
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. C. No.34458 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.759/07
on the file of the II Additional Sub Court,
Thiruvananthapuram and the respondents are the
plaintiffs therein. The prayer in this Writ
Petition is to direct the II Additional Sub Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram to consider and dispose of
I.A.5769/07 in O.S.759/07 filed by the respondents
on merits taking into account also Ext.P5
objections filed by them as expeditiously as
possible and within a time limit to be fixed by
this Court.
2. Considering the nature of the order that I
propose to pass in this Writ Petition, I dispense
with notice to the respondents.
3. Ext.P1 is the plaint in the suit. The said
suit is one for a decree for mandatory injunction
W. P. C. No.34458 of 2008 -2-
directing the petitioners/defendants to restore
lateral support to ‘A’ Schedule property that was
available from ‘B’ schedule property and which was
destroyed by them at the cost of the defendants
themselves and for a prohibitory injunction
restraining them from alienating ‘B’ schedule
property. On the application of the respondents,
the trial court issued Ext.P3 order of interim
prohibitory injunction on Ext.P2 application
restraining the counter petitioners who are
petitioners herein from alienating the ‘B’
schedule property to anyone else without
reconstructing the eastern compound wall of plaint
‘A’ schedule property and restoring the lateral
support. The petitioners filed Ext.P5 objection to
the said injunction petition. The grievance of the
petitioners that is highlighted before me by the
counsel for the petitioners is that though
W. P. C. No.34458 of 2008 -3-
objection was filed on 15/02/08 to I.A.5769/07
when it stood posted for objections, it was
adjourned for hearing to 27/06/08 after four
months and from that date it was adjourned to
10/10/08 and thereafter to 23/01/09 without
vacating the ex parte interim injunction or
passing considered final orders thereon.
4. It is submitted that Ext.P6 written
statement was also filed on 15/11/08 though it had
not been filed on 27/06/08 as represented or on
10/10/08, the adjourned date, but with a petition
to receive the same. However, what the petitioner
wants is to expedite disposal of the injunction
petition and to have orders passed thereon on
merits.
5. In the result, I direct the court below to
consider the injunction application filed in
O.S.759/07 advancing its hearing on a motion made
W. P. C. No.34458 of 2008 -4-
by the petitioners/defendants in that behalf and
to pass appropriate orders thereon on merits
before closing of the courts for Christmas
holidays. The petitioner is directed to produce a
copy of this judgment along with the advance
petition that he is to file in the court below
with notice to counsel for the respondents/
plaintiffs to enable the court to take appropriate
action as directed above.
6. Issue copy of this judgment to the counsel
for the petitioner urgently.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-