P.R.Deva Das vs Akila Kerala Viswa Karma Maha … on 8 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25597 of 2007(V)


1. P.R.DEVA DAS,PRESIDENT,AKILA KERALA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AKILA KERALA VISWA KARMA MAHA SABHA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.V.RAJA GOPALAN,

3. T.P.KUMARAN ACHARY,TREASURER,

4. VISWAKARMA SERVICE SOCIETY,

5. TAMIL VISWAKARMA SAMOOHAM,ALAPPUZHA - II

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :08/01/2010

 O R D E R
              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -------------------------------
              W.P.(C).NO.25597 OF 2007 ()
                -----------------------------------
         Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010

                       J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.160 of 2001 on

the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara, now renumbered as

O.S.No.85 of 2008 on transfer and pending for trial before the

Sub Court, Chengannoor. Suit is one for declaration and for

consequential injunction. Challenge in the writ petition is

against the order passed in the interlocutory application for

injunction, which was confirmed by the District Court in

appeal. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the case has already come up in the

special list for trial and is posted today for recording of

evidence. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel

requested for issue of a direction to the court below for an

early disposal of the suit untrammelled by any of the

observations made on the interlocutory application for

injunction by the learned Sub Judge and also by the learned

WPC.25597/07 2

District Judge in appeal. Having regard to the fact that the

case has come up in the list for trial and taking note of the

submissions made by the counsel, I find no further dilation on

the pleadings or on the merit of the orders challenged in the

writ petition is called for. Needless to point out that the

observations or findings made by the court in the interlocutory

proceedings shall not have any bearing or influence in the

disposal of the suit on its merits. However, to alley the

apprehension expressed by the petitioner, there will be a

direction to the court below to dispose the suit untramelled by

any of the observations made in the order passed on the

application for injunction by the learned Sub Judge and also in

the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in the

appeal. The court below is also directed to dispose the suit as

expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is accordingly closed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE

prp