MARY Vs. ISSAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 82 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Perumbavoor. The respondent is the first defendant therein. The suit instituted by the petitioner is for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to her. Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 853 of 2013 for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant from creating any document over the plaint schedule property or from encumbering or alienating the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit She also prayed that a copy of the order passed may be handed over to her and it may also be intimated to the Sub Registrar's Office, Puthencruz and the Village Officer, Kunnathunad. On that application, an ex parte interim order of injunction was passed on 11.4.2013. Ext. P4 is a copy thereof. It is stated that though thereafter the petitioner produced a copy of Ext. P4 order before the Sub Registrar's Office, Puthencruz along with Ext. P5 covering letter, he returned it stating that he will accept it only if it is sent through proper channel. The petitioner there after filed I.A. No. 908 of 2013 under S. 151 read with O. XXXIX Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the court below to communicate the order dated 11.4.2013 in I.A. No. 853 of 2013 to the Sub Registrar's Office, Puthencruz and the Village Officer, Kunnathunadu. That application was closed by Ext. P7 order dated 23.5.2013 with the observation that the petitioner may obtain a copy of order for production before the Sub Registrar's Office. Hence, this Original Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext. P7 order. Though this respondents has been served, he has not entered appearance. Heard Sri Pramoj Abrahim learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records. Ext. P4 or discloses that the petitioner had even in I.A. No. 853 of 2013 prayed that the interim order of injunction to be passed may be communicated to die Sub Registrar's Office, Puthencruz and the Village Officer, Kunnathunad. The said request was not granted though an ad interim order of injunction was passed. Later, the petitioner filed an application to communicate that order and it was closed by the impugned order with the observation that the petitioner may obtain a copy of order for production before the Sub Registrar's Office. Though the Civil Rules of Practice or the Code of Civil Procedure does not envisage such a procedure, it is not in dispute that temporary injunction orders restraining alienation are communicated by some of the Civil Courts to the Sub Registrars concerned. The Apex Court has in Velusamy K.K. v. N. Palanisamy, 2011 2 KerLT 19 held that the inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, the court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in S. 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intention of the Legislature. The Apex Court also held that the court cannot make use of the special provision of Section 151 of the Code when other remedies are provided.

(2.) In the instant case, as stated earlier, there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Civil Rules of Practice which prescribes the manner in which an order of injunction passed against a private individual restraining him from alienate immovable property or from creating documents in respect of immovable property is to be communicated to the Sub Registrar's Office having jurisdiction over the locality where the property is situate. The apprehension entertained by the petitioner is that if the order of injunction is not communicated to the Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction the property is situate, the respondent, who is none other than her brother will sell the property to third parties or create encumbrances which in turn will cause serious prejudice to her. In such circumstances, as the request made by the petitioner does not offend any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Civil Rules of Practice and the request is only to communicate a copy of the order of injunction passed by the court to the Sub Registrar, I am of the opinion that, to meet the ends of justice, the request of the petitioner can be allowed.