YESUDASAN NADAR Vs. PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1423 of 1989 on the file of Principal Munsiff, Kollam, first respondent. Second respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in a building and he is the sole defendant in that case. Suit is one for injunction. Dispute is regarding possession of the vacant land on the back side of the building. Interim injunction was confirmed in favour of petitioner in I. A. No. 4671 of 1989 filed for a temporary injunction. Alleging disobedience of injunction, petitioner filed I. A. No. 164 of 1990 to prosecute second respondent. He also filed I. A. No. 159 of 1990 for a temporary mandatory injunction to direct second respondent to remove the pipes alleged to be stocked in the backyard in violation of the order of injunction.

(2.) Complaint of the petitioner is that though second respondent filed objections and written statement, these interlocutory applications were not disposed of even after eighteen postings. It is said that thereafter he moved I. A. No. 4568 of 1990 on 11th December 1990 requesting police authorities to be directed to implement the order of injunction. Finally, on 11th April 1991, I. A. No. 4568 of 1990 was heard and posted for orders to 12th April 1991. Instead of passing orders, case was thereafter posted for settlement of issues alone and the interlocutory applications were ordered to be posted along with suit.

(3.) Though original petition is purported to have been filed under Art.227, it is really one under Art.226 and the prayer is that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing first respondent to re-post the petitions and pass appropriate orders without delay, thereby interfering with the judicial discretion exercised by Munsiff to post the interlocutory applications along with suit. In effect, what petitioner wants is to quash the order of the Munsiff posting the interlocutory applications for decision along with suit and direct him by a writ of mandamus to discharge judicial function of re-posting and disposing the interlocutory applications immediately against his judicial discretion