High Court Kerala High Court

Faousia vs Sulaikha Beevi on 16 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Faousia vs Sulaikha Beevi on 16 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17688 of 2008(E)


1. FAOUSIA, 41 YEARS, W/O.K.V.BAVA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. C.P.AYISHA, 47 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. SULAIKHA BEEVI, 59 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. VAFA, 34 YEARS, W/O.NAZEER AHMED,

3. NAZEER AHMED, 40 YEARS,

4. MUHAMMED BARAMI, 39 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

                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.
                    ...........................................
                  WP(C).No. 17688                OF 2008
                   ............................................
         DATED THIS THE            16th       DAY OF JUNE, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.132 of 2008 on the file

of Sub Court, Kozhikode. I.A.992 of 2008 was filed under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, for an order of

temporary injunction. I.A.1308 of 2008 was filed by respondents

1 and 2, seeking permission to put up a gate. Under Ext.P6

common order dated 11.4.2008, learned Sub Judge dismissed the

application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure and allowed I.A.1308 of 2008. The order dismissing

the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code, being an

appealable order, is challenged before District Court, Kozhikode

in CMA 29 of 2008. Since no appeal will lie as against an order

in an application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure, this petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India.

2. The crucial question is whether petitioners are entitled

to the order of injunction in I.A.992 of 2008. Respondents 1 and

2 could be permitted to put up a gate as sought for in I.A.1308 of

2008, only if petitioners are not entitled to the order for

WP(C) 17688/2008 2

injunction sought for in I.A.992 of 2008. As both petitions were

disposed by a common order and against the main order

refusing the order of temporary injunction, CMA 29 of 2008

filed by petitioners is pending before District Court, petitioners

are to be permitted to challenge the order in I.A.1308 of 2008

also in the CMA.

The writ petition is disposed, granting liberty to petitioners

to challenge the order in I.A.1308 of 2008, along with the order

in I.A.992 of 2008. Learned District Judge has to consider the

correctness of both the orders in I.A.992 of 2008 and I.A.1308 of

2008 in the pending appeal.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-