Kerala High Court
Koyappathodi Saw Mill (P) Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33804 of 2008(Y)
1. KOYAPPATHODI SAW MILL (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE, HEADING AT
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.33804 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.119 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. Suit is one for a declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to be evicted from the properties, six items described in the plaint. The defendants in the suit are the State and the Revenue official. In the suit, plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting him from the properties till disposal of the suit. That application was resisted by the defendants. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application. Ext.P4 is that order. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against Ext.P4 order before the District Court, Koxhikode. The learned District Judge after reappreciating the materials concurred with the views expressed by the learned Sub Judge in Ext.P4 order, dismissed the appeal vide Ext.P6 judgment. Propriety and WPC.33804/08 2 correctness of Ext.P4 order and Ext.P6 judgment are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Sub Judge and Ext.P6 judgment of the learned District Judge, both of them concurring that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction applied for, I find no impropriety or illegality in declining that relief. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff being fully aware of the limited scope of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court in impeaching the concurrent findings entered by the two inferior courts declining the interim relief of injunction, contended that some of the observations made in Ext.P6 judgment passed by the learned District Judge, if not removed, would cause prejudice to the plaintiff in the trial of the suit. I do not find any merit in the apprehension canvassed since it is needless to point out that none of the observations made in the interlocutory application WPC.33804/08 3 shall have any bearing in the disposal of a suit on its merits. It is submitted that the suit is ripe for trial. The learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations in his Ext.P4 order and Ext.P6 judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed accordingly.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
WPC.33804/08 4