IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7577 of 2009(O)
1. SOMAN NADAR,THENGOTTUKOTTU THEKKUMKARA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, S/O.SUBRAMONIAN NADAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :14/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August 2009
-------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs.
i) Issue appropriate writ direction or
order to quash Ext.P2 and P3 orders passed by the
II Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram and
Principal District Court, Thiruvananthapuram or on
the alternative direct the District Court,
Thiruvananthapuram to hear and pass appropriate
orders de-novo pending disposal of the writ
petition.
W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009 Page numbers
ii) Grant such other relief that are
deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S
No. 279 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional
Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is for
specific performance of an oral agreement of sale
and the respondent is the defendant. In the above
suit the respondent / defendant moved an
application for interim injunction which after
hearing both sides was allowed by the learned
Munsiff. Petitioner challenged that order by
preferring an appeal before the District Court, but
the order of the learned Munsiff was confirmed
dismissing the appeal. Impeaching the propriety
and correctness of the judgment rendered by the
appellate court the writ petition has been filed
seeking the aforementioned reliefs invoking the
W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009 Page numbers
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made
and taking note of the facts and circumstances
presented with reference to Ext.P3 judgment
impugned in the petition, I find no notice to the
respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
some observations in Ext.P3 judgment rendered by
the learned Munsiff are likely to cause prejudice
to the petitioner, and it may influence the mind of
the trial judge while disposing the suit on merit,
I find no reason for such an apprehension because
the observations or opinions expressed in orders in
interlocutory proceedings in a suit will not have
any reflection in the final disposal of the suit,
which has to be done on the basis of the materials
W.P.(C).No.7577 OF 2009 Page numbers
to be tendered in the case. However, to alley the
apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, I direct the learned Munsiff to
dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the
observations in his order or Ext.P3 judgment
rendered by the learned District Judge. Subject to
the above directions, the writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv