IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7680 of 2009(O)
1. P.T.SUBASH, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUKUMARA PILLAI, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. INDIRAMMA, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU,
3. SUBASH, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU,
4. GEETHA, PATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :21/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.7680 AND 7681 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August 2009
-------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The common petitioner in these two writ
petitions is the plaintiff in O.S No. 23 of 2008
and the defendant in O.S No.27 of 2008, both
pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur.
Suit filed by the petitioner is one for
cancellation of a sale deed and consequential
injunction. Suit filed by the respondent in writ
petition No. 7681 of 2009, the second defendant in
O.S No.23 of 2008, is one for a perpetual
prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner
from trespassing upon or interfering in any manner
the peaceful possession and enjoyment of that
property by that respondent. The learned Munsiff
after hearing both the applications passed separate
W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers
AND 7681 OF 2009
orders, dismissing the application for interim
injunction moved by the petitioner and allowing
that of the second respondent / plaintiff in O.S
No. 27 of 2008. Aggrieved by the orders so
passed, petitioner preferred two appeals as C.M.A
No.18/2008 and C.M.A No.8/2008 before Sub Court,
Kottarakara. The learned Sub Judge after hearing
both sides and appreciating the materials tendered
by the parties on the interlocutory applications,
upheld the orders passed by the learned Munsiff and
dismissed the appeals under a common judgment.
Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that
common judgment, a copy of which is produced as
Ext.P10 in writ petition No. 7681/2009, petitioner
has filed these two writ petitions invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers AND 7681 OF 2009
2. I heard the learned counsel on both
sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that some of the
observations made in the common judgment by the
learned Sub Judge if not removed would have serious
reflection and bearing in the trial of the suit and
its disposal by the learned Munsiff. It is further
submitted that, materials produced by the
petitioner to substantiate his case including the
commission report have not been properly
appreciated by the court below while passing orders
on the interlocutory applications. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that in the orders passed by the court
below granting discretionary equitable relief there
is no infirmity or any error, and the orders
concurrently passed by two inferior courts do not
warrant any interference in exercise of the
visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court.
Having regard to the submissions made by the W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers AND 7681 OF 2009
counsel on both sides and perusing impugned Ext.P10
judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge, I find,
it may not be proper for this court to reappreciate
the materials in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction. But I find some force in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the observations and findings in
interlocutory applications should have no bearing
or reflection in the final orders to be passed in a
suit or proceeding. A further request is also made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till
the suits are disposed on merits, the status quo
at present should be retained. The learned counsel
for the respondent submitted that no alteration nor
any construction will be made in the property
covered by the suit till its disposal by the
Munsiff Court. That submission is recorded. I
direct the learned Munsiff, Punalur to dispose the
suit as expeditiously as possible untrammelled by
any of the observations made in his order or in the
W.P.(C).Nos.7680 Page numbers
AND 7681 OF 2009
common judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge,
at any rate, before the closing of the courts in
the mid summer vacation 2010. The learned Munsiff
shall also consider the feasibility of joint trial
of the two suits whether or not any application is
moved by any of the parties to the suit. Subject
to the above observation, the writ petition is
closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv