IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6175 of 2008(I)
1. ANTONY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ALEXANDER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAANSPOWEN JACKEOUS, CLOWERLAND,
... Respondent
2. THRESIYAMMA POWEN,
3. ANIL KUMAR, CLOWERLAND, PERAYAM CHERRY
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
W.P.(C) NO.6175 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.624/2004 on
the file of Additional Munsiff’s Court, Kollam.
Respondents are the defendants. Petitioner filed
I.A.2916/2004 an application for temporary
injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of
Civil Procedure. Under Ext.P1 order petition was
dismissed. Petitioner challenged that order before
District Court, Kollam in C.M.A.5/2005. Learned
Additional District Judge on reappreciation of the
materials confirmed Ext.P1 order and dismissed the
appeal. It is challenged in this petition filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
was heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
argued that trial court and appellate court did not
properly consider the claim of the petitioner with
W.P.(C)6175/2008 2
regard to possession as well as irreparable injury
that will be caused and the balance of convenience
and there is no material suppression of fact and in
such circumstance order of injunction should have
been granted.
4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not
find any illegality or irregularity or other
sufficient reason to interfere with Ext.P1 or P2
orders.
5. Trial court as well as appellate court
found a prima facie case against petitioner and did
not grant the relief. The question whether
petitioner has been in possession of the plaint
schedule property on the date of institution of the
suit is to be finally settled on the evidence on
record to be adduced in the suit. The finding in
Exts.P1 and P2 will not preclude the court to
decide whether petitioner is entitled to the
decree for injunction sought for. In such
circumstance, the petition is dismissed. Learned
Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit
untrammelled by any observations in Exts.P1 and P2.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006