IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8725 of 2009(O)
1. P.A.KUMARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASOK KUMAR,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. K.P.RAJASEKHARAN, SECRETARY,
4. GOPI, VICE PRESIDENT,
5. SUKUMARAN, TREASURER, KOOTTALA,
6. SIVARAMAN NAIR, KALLANGHATT,
7. T.N.HARIDAS, PRANAVAM,
8. K.P.SURESH, KAUSTHABHAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.8725 of 2009
--------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.27 of 2007
on the file of the court of the Principal Sub Judge, Paravur. The
suit was filed by the first respondent for fixation of boundary and
consequential injunction. The suit is pending. The Writ Petitioner
and others filed I.A.No.1271 of 2008 dated 17.3.2008 (Ext.P2)
for permission to install the deity of Brahmarakshasu on the
thara mentioned in Ext.P2 application. Ext.P2 application is
pending disposal. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a
direction to the Sub Court, Paravur to dispose of Ext.P2
application expeditiously.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/plaintiff contended that the thara was constructed
violating the interim order granted in the suit and that
I.A.No.1508 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff under Rule 2A of
Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that application is
also pending. He also submitted that I.A.No.1573 of 2008 was
WPC No.8725/2009 2
also filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for injunction
restraining the defendants from making further constructions.
That application is also pending. The counsel for the first
respondent submitted that he has no objection in issuing a
direction to the trial court to dispose of Ext.P2 application. But,
his submission is that along with Ext.P2 application, I.A.Nos.1508
of 2007 and 1573 of 2008 may also be directed to be disposed
of. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the
suggestion made by the first respondent.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
The Principal Sub Court, Paravur shall dispose of
I.A.Nos.1271 of 2008, 1508 of 2007 and 1573 of 2008, as
expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to both parties.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl