IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13397 of 2009(O)
1. SR. VINCENT MARY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SR. JESSY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :18/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.13397 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or other
appropriate order or direction to quash
Exhibit P12.
(b) to grant such other reliefs as are just and
proper in the nature of this case.”
2. An ex parte order of injunction, Exhibit P12, passed by
the Vacation District Judge is challenged in the Writ Petition
as one without jurisdiction and abuse of process of the court.
In Exhibit P12 order, the nominated District Judge, during the
vacation, has ordered that the interim order passed shall
continue to be in force till the disposal of the suit. Such an
order could not have been passed under the provisions of
Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules
thereunder and it cannot have sanction of law, is the case of
the petitioner.
WP(C).13397/09 2
3. Having regard to the submissions made and also the
facts and circumstances presented, I find, a narration of the
disputes involved between the parties which is said to be
between the Provincial Superior and the Nuns under her
control emanating from rival claims over the management and
administration of a School need not be adverted to for disposal
of this petition. The learned counsel on both sides fairly
submitted that since no final orders have been passed on the
application for injunction, its merit can be considered by the
trial court within a time limit fixed by this Court. The learned
counsel for the petitioner also urged that whatever contentions
raised impeaching the jurisdiction may also be reserved for
being raised on the hearing of the application on merits. The
Writ Petition is not disposed on merits and as such it is open to
the petitioner to urge his contentions, whatever that be,
against Exhibit P11 application on its hearing. In the Writ
Petition, an interim order had been passed directing for
keeping in abeyance Exhibit P12 order till the disposal of the
Petition. That order shall continue to be in force till the
injunction application moved by the respondent is disposed of
on merits. The learned Munsiff is directed to hear and dispose
WP(C).13397/09 3
P11 injunction application within a period of three weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner
(respondent in the injunction application) who has not filed the
counter shall file counter, if any, within ten days.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent raised an
apprehension that the order passed by this Court in the writ
petition for keeping in abeyance the operation of P12 order as
well as the direction issued now for its continued operation till
the disposal of that application on merits may influence the
learned Munsiff in disposing the application on merits. I direct
the learned Munsiff to dispose of the interlocutory application
untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in
the present judgment or on the basis of the orders/directions
given for keeping in abeyance the operation of P12 till the
disposal of the application.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Munsiff
concerned and also hand over a copy to the counsel on both
sides on usual terms.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE
vgs.