IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36151 of 2008(D)
1. K.S.SURESH KUMAR, 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY.
3. VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. V.SOMANATHAN NAIR, 60 YEARS
For Petitioner :SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.36151 of 2008 - D
---------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate
writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to
Ext.P2 and quash the same as illegal.”
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.57/2009 on the file
of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta. Suit was one for
injunction. Along with the plaint, petitioner filed an application
for interim injunction to restrain the 4th defendant from
tresspassing upon the plaint schedule property and interfering
with his possession and enjoyment over the same. Learned
Munsiff after hearing both sides, concluded that the petitioner has
not made out a prima facie case for the relief sought for and
dismissed that application. Ext.P1 is the copy of that order.
Against Ext.P1 order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the
District Court, Pathanamthitta. The appeal, after being heard,
was disposed under Ext.P2 judgment by which the order of the
W.P.(C).No.36151 of 2008 – D
2
dismissal of the interlocutory application by the learned Munsiff
was upheld. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P1
order and Ext.P2 judgment, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader has taken notice for
respondents 1 to 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts
and circumstances presented, I find that there is no scope for
interfering with Ext.P1 order of the learned Munsiff or Ext.P2
judgment of the learned District Judge, which have been passed
by the respective courts considering the merit of an interlocutory
application moved by the petitioner in a suit. Whatever be the
merits of the case of the petitioner for an injunction claimed in
the suit, he can prosecute such claim tendering materials in
support thereof. For the time being, both the courts have
decided only that petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary
relief of interim injunction on the facts and circumstances
presented and materials produced. No serious infirmity or
illegality in any of the findings made under Exts.P1 and P2 is
W.P.(C).No.36151 of 2008 – D
3
brought to my notice to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed making it clear that the trial
court shall dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the
observations made in Ext.P1 order of the learned Munsiff and also
Ext.P2 judgment passed by the learned District Judge in appeal.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-