Jamal vs Muhammedali on 30 March, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jamal vs Muhammedali on 30 March, 2009

Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8129 of 2009(O)


1. JAMAL, S/O.CHATHANKOTTIL MANI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MUHAMMEDALI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MR.GIREESAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BHASKARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :30/03/2009

 O R D E R
                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

               -------------------------------------------------

                    W.P.(C).No. 8129 OF 2009

              --------------------------------------------------

             Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009


                           J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to Sub Court, Thrissur to dispose of Ext.P11 petition (I.A.6717 of 2008 in O.S.1244 of 2008 filed under Rule 1 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure). Petitioner is the second defendant/second respondent in Ext.P11 application. First respondent is the petitioner in the application and plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration and consequential mandatory injunction. Ext.P11 application was filed along with the suit. An exparte order of temporary injunction was granted on 1.9.2008. Subsequently alleging that respondent violated the order of injunction, first respondent filed I.A.7989 of 2008. Challenging the order passed by the Sub Judge directing the Village Officer to give assistance to the Advocate Commissioner, when there was no subsisting commissioner to execute a commission warrant, first respondent filed WP(C) 3238 of 2009 challenging that order. Under Ext.P16 WP(C)8129/09-O 2 judgment this Court set aside that order and directed the Sub Judge to dispose the application filed for taking action against the defendants for violation of the order of injunction. It was made clear that the defendants are at liberty to seek remission of the report for proper identification of the properties. This petition is filed thereafter, for a direction to dispose Ext.P11 application for temporary injunction. Even though first respondent sought a direction for disposal of the application filed under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure in WP (C) 3238 of 2009, at that point of time petitioner did not seek any order or direction from this Court. This writ petition is filed when the Court is about to be closed for summer vacation for a direction to dispose Ext.P11 application within a time frame.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard.

3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when an exparte order of temporary injunction is granted, the court is bound to pass a final order within 30 days from the date of the order. When respondents in Ext.P11 application have filed an objection opposing the WP(C)8129/09-O 3 application, Sub Judge should have passed a final order without delay. As final order is not passed, Sub Judge, Thrissur is directed to pass final order in Ext.P11 application without delay.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court