IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19001 of 2008(K)
1. VALAYUDHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOCHY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.19001 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 24th June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Additional third defendant in O.S.No.38/2007, on the
file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Ponnani, is the petitioner, and
respondent the plaintiff. Respondent originally instituted the suit
against two defendants. An order of injunction was passed against
them in I.A.No.183/2007, restraining them from doing any
construction work in the property. It is thereafter petitioner was
impleaded as third defendant. I.A.No.432/2008 was thereafter filed
by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure. The petition was posted for objection to 22.5.2008. On
that date, no objection was filed. Learned Munsiff heard the counsel
appearing for the respondent, as well as the petitioner. As per the
order dated, 22.5.2008, finding that petitioner is an assignee from
first defendant and as against the construction, an order of injunction
was granted in I.A.No.183/2007, learned Munsiff directed the parties
to maintain status quo as noted by the Commissioner. Petition was
posted for filing objection to 27.5.2008, on which date also, no
W.P.(C) No.19001/2008
2
objection was filed by the petitioner, and it was thereafter posted to
2.6.2008. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to quash the order passed by the trial court on 22.5.2008.
On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the Munsiff. The order
dated 22.5.2008 was not passed after resolving a prima facie
satisfaction of the case. Instead court found that though petition was
posted for objection, petitioner did not file any objection and an order
of injunction was earlier passed against other defendants, including
the assignor of petitioner. It is in such circumstances, Munsiff directed
the parties to maintain status quo and posted the case for filing
objection of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to file an objection
and seek a final order in that application. When I.A.No.432/2008 is
finally disposed, petitioner is entitled to challenge that order, if it goes
against him, as provided under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure. Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.
