Abdul Latheef & Another vs Ashraf & Another on 11 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35725 of 2009(O)



1. ABDUL LATHEEF & ANOTHER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. ASHRAF & ANOTHER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :11/12/2009

 O R D E R
                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -----------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.35725 of 2009 - O
                   ---------------------------------
            Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for permanent

prohibitory injunction which had been dismissed for default for

his nonappearance. An application was moved on the listed day

of the suit by the plaintiffs for adjournment, but, turning down

the application suit had been dismissed, submits the counsel for

the petitioners. Petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for

restoring the suit. Ext.P8 is the copy of that application. Till the

dismissal of the suit dismissed for default, according to the

counsel, an order of interim injunction was in force restraining

the defendants from filling up the plaint schedule property. After

the dismissal of the suit the respondents/defendants are taking

steps to tamper and fill up the plaint property, is the grievance

espoused in the writ petition for issue of appropriate

direction/order restraining the respondents/defendants from

interfering with that property till disposal of the restoration

petition moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs. I find that the

W.P.(C).No.35725 of 2009 – O

2

visitorial jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for the relief

canvassed. However, taking note of the submissions made and

the facts and circumstances presented, there will be a direction to

the court below to dispose the restoration application moved by

the petitioners/plaintiffs, as expeditiously as possible. Notice

given to the counsel for the defendants in the court below on the

restoration application shall be treated as sufficient for

conducting the enquiry on that petition so as to dispose it

expeditiously.

Subject to the above direction, writ petition is closed. Hand

over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.

bkn/-