Manu K. Gopalakrishnan And Ors vs K. Sivasankara Menon And Ors

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.319/2020 are before this Court in this original petition. They are aggrieved by Ext.P9 order dated 09.02.2021

passed by the learned Munsiff, Ottapalam allowing plaintiff's application for implementing order of temporary injunction passed in I.A.No.1827/2020

through police.

The respondent/plaintiff obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 21.01.2021 in I.A.No.1827/2020. This order was passed by the court below

after hearing parties and on merits. The respondent herein sought the order dated 21.01.2021 to be implemented through Station House Officer,

Shornur police station by filing I.A.No.363/2021 and it was allowed by the impugned order. The challenge directed in this original petition is against the

legality of the order passed by the court below on 09.02.2021.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

It appears that the temporary injunction passed in I.A.No.1827/2020 was ordered to be implemented while C.M.A.No.4/2021 challenging the said

order was pending before Sub Court, Ottapalam. The court below has noted in the impugned order that it was justified in issuing the order inasmuch as

there was no stay issued by Sub Court, Ottapalam, postponing implementation of the order.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Ext.P9 order was passed without hearing the respondents in I.A.No.363/2021 and further, that

the order ought not to have been passed at a time when it was under challenge before appellate court forum.

The learned counsel for the respondent herein on the other hand contends that the impugned order was already implemented and therefore, the

matter itself has become infructuous.

In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, if the impugned order is allowed to be stand, it would continue

to work out great hardship and injustice to the petitioner day in and out and therefore, it is liable to be set aside at the earliest.

Ext.P9 in my view is only a dependent order and it can hardly stand apart from the merits and legality of order passed in I.A.No.1827/2020. Once it

is shown that order of temporary injunction challenged in C.M.A.No.4/2021 before Sub Court, Ottapalam is worth interfering or rather cannot be

sustained under law,it goes without saying that Ext.P9 order must necessarily fall to ground.

What I mean to say is that Ext.P9 order being a dependent order and legality of the same depends on the sustainability of order passed in

I.A.No.1827/2020, the petitioners should have rather approached the Sub Court, Ottapalam, seeking necessary orders staying operation of the order

instead of rushing to this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot decide on the legality of Ext.P9 without being able

to decide the legality of order on I.A.No.1827/2020.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners shall approach the appellate court and canvass appropriate relief in accordance with law.

It is brought to my notice that the petitioners have also filed another suit and obtained an order of temporary injunction in respect of which also,

C.M.A. is pending before the Sub Court, Ottapalam. A common request was made by the learned counsel appearing on either side that all the matters

are to be heard and disposed of together.

In the result, original petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to approach Sub Court, Ottapalam and request that court to take up petition for

staying Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Munsiff, Ottapalam and decide it in accordance with law. It is directed that, if such a request is made, the

appellate court shall decide it within two weeks from today in accordance with law. It will be open to the appellate court to consider whether all

matters before it are to be heard and disposed of together. The parties are directed to maintain status quo until the appellate court takes appropriate

decision as per law on I.A. filed by the petitioner herein seeking stay of operation of Ext.P9 order. The parties may produce a copy of this judgment

before the Sub Court, Ottapalam.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.