High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
T.K.SATHI DEVI, D/O.KANNAN v. ELITANPATTERI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. PARU - WP(C) No. 25369 of 2005(T)  RD-KL 12640 (10 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 25369 of 2005(T)
1. T.K.SATHI DEVI, D/O.KANNAN,
2. SHEELA M.T., D/O.BALAN,
3. M.T.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.BALAN, AGED 44 YEAR
4. M.T.UMESH, S/O.BALAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
5. M.T.ANITHA, D/O.BALAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
6. M.T.ARUN, S/O.BALAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
7. RESHMI KRISHNAN,
1. ELITANPATTERI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. PARU,
2. O.K.MALINI, W/O.KUNHIKANNAN,
3. K.K.SAGEESH, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN,
4. K.K.SATHYAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
For Respondent :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.W.P.(C) NO. 25369 of 2005
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2007
The plaintiffs, in a suit for injunction, impugn in this writ petition under Article 227 Ext.P5 judgment of the learned District Judge reversing Ext.P4 order of temporary injunction which had WW been granted in their favour.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.V.R.K. Kaimal, the learned counsel for the respondents, who were successfull in Ext.P5 CMA. Even though Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar would flay Ext.P5 on the various grounds raised in the writ petition, I am unable to agree with him when he submits that Ext.P5 is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference by this court under its visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. I notice that this court has directed both sides to
maintain status quo as obtaining on 25.8.2005.
The said order
is continuing till date. Having considered the rival submissions
made at the bar, I am of the view that the writ petition can be
disposed of issuing the following directions:
i). The Additional Munsiff, Kannur will try and dispose of O.S.218/2005 uninfluenced in any manner by the observations and findings in her own Ext.P4 order and also Ext.P5 judgment of the lower appellate court. Those findings and observations will be treated by the learned Munsiff as provisional and made only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory proceedings. The suit will be decided by the learned Munsiff on the basis of evidence which comes on record at trial. The learned Munsiff will ensure that suit is disposed of at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). Considering the above directions, there will be a further direction to both the parties to continue to maintain status quo, as already ordered by this court on 25.8.2005, till such time as the suit is disposed of. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.dpk WPC No.25369/2005 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.