IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33804 of 2008(Y)
1. KOYAPPATHODI SAW MILL (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE, HEADING AT
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.33804 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.119 of 2008 on the file
of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. Suit is one for a declaration that
the plaintiff is not liable to be evicted from the properties, six
items described in the plaint. The defendants in the suit are the
State and the Revenue official. In the suit, plaintiff moved an
application for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from
evicting him from the properties till disposal of the suit. That
application was resisted by the defendants. The learned Sub
Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application.
Ext.P4 is that order. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against Ext.P4
order before the District Court, Koxhikode. The learned District
Judge after reappreciating the materials concurred with the
views expressed by the learned Sub Judge in Ext.P4 order,
dismissed the appeal vide Ext.P6 judgment. Propriety and
WPC.33804/08 2
correctness of Ext.P4 order and Ext.P6 judgment are challenged
in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested
with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing Ext.P4
order passed by the learned Sub Judge and Ext.P6 judgment of
the learned District Judge, both of them concurring that the
petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of
injunction applied for, I find no impropriety or illegality in
declining that relief. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/plaintiff being fully aware of the limited scope of
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court in impeaching the
concurrent findings entered by the two inferior courts declining
the interim relief of injunction, contended that some of the
observations made in Ext.P6 judgment passed by the learned
District Judge, if not removed, would cause prejudice to the
plaintiff in the trial of the suit. I do not find any merit in the
apprehension canvassed since it is needless to point out that
none of the observations made in the interlocutory application
WPC.33804/08 3
shall have any bearing in the disposal of a suit on its merits. It is
submitted that the suit is ripe for trial. The learned Sub Judge is
directed to dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the
observations in his Ext.P4 order and Ext.P6 judgment rendered
by the learned District Judge, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of six months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is
disposed accordingly.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
WPC.33804/08 4