IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2239 of 2010(O)
1. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. K.I.HASSAN
... Petitioner
2. K.H.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O. K.I.HASSAN
3. K.H.ABDUL SALAM, S/O. K.I.HASSAN
4. NAZEEMA KAREEM, W/O.LATE K.H.ABDULKAREEM
5. SHABNA KAREEM,D/O.LATE K.H.ABDULKAREEM
Vs
1. N.A.SHERIFFA, W/O.A.M.KHADAR PIALLAI
... Respondent
2. A.K.NAZAR, S/O.A.M.KHADAR PILLAI
3. M/S. R.F.MOTORS PVT.LTD,REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :22/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.2239 of 2010
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are defendants 2 to 6 in
O.S.No.962/09 on the file of the Principal Sub Court,
Ernakulam. The above suit is one for declaration
and injunction and respondents 1 and 2 are the
plaintiffs.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents/plaintiffs have
sought for a declaration that the establishment and
the functioning of a workshop and service station by
the 1st defendant in plaint B Schedule property is
hazardous to the lives of the plaintiffs and their
family members, and as such not liable to be carried
on in that property, and for a prohibitory injunction,
restraining the establishment and operation of the
workshop and service station in that property.
3. In the suit, the plaintiffs have applied for
an interim injunction against the defendants and the
W.P.(C).No.2239 of 2010
:: 2 ::
court below has passed an ex parte order of
injunction by Ext.P3 order dated 24.12.2009.
4. The petitioners, on receiving notice,
appeared before the court and filed a counter seeking
the vacation of the ex parte order of injunction.
Counter was filed on 6.1.2010. Despite persuasive
requests made by the petitioners that they have
already made all arrangements for commencing the
operation of the service station and workshop, the
court below has adjourned the case by posting it
along with the suit on 22.2.2010, submits the counsel.
An advance petition filed to hear and dispose of the
injunction application, in which an ex parte order had
been passed, it is submitted, has also been posted to
19.2.2010. In the circumstances indicated above,
according to the counsel, the petitioners have
approached this court with the above writ petition for
an early hearing of the injunction application.
W.P.(C).No.2239 of 2010
:: 3 ::
5. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and taking note of the
submissions presented, I find, no notice to the
respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with.
6. It appears that the mandatory requirement
under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code Civil
Procedure has not been taken note of by the court
below. When an injunction has been ordered ex parte
without notice to the opposite party, it is incumbent
upon the court to make every endeavour to see that
the application is finally disposed of within a period of
30 days from the date on which the injunction was
granted.
7. There will be a direction to the court below
to hear and dispose of Ext.P2 application in which
Ext.P3 ex parte order of injunction has been passed
within a period of 15 days from the date of production
of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.(C).No.2239 of 2010
:: 4 ::
8. Writ petition is disposed of as indicated
above.
Hand over a copy of this judgment to the
learned counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and
send a copy to the court concerned forthwith.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
SK/-
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge.