PADICHERY MOYYARIKKANDY SUBAIDA Vs. ARYAKKUL SUHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the purpose of disposal of these petitions, the facts in O.P.(C) 870/2015 are being referred to.

(2.) It is interesting to note that both the petitioner as well as the respondents challenge the very same order as affecting their rights. The order that is challenged is the order dated 16.03.2015 whereby the plaintiff in the suit who is the petitioner in O.P.(C)No.870/2015 was given police protection for the implementation of an injunction order in her favour.

(3.) The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these petitions are as follows: The petitioner in O.P.(C)No. 870/2015 instituted a suit against the defendants who are the petitioners in O.P.(C)No. 982/2015 for permanent prohibitory injunction. Along with the suit, they moved an interlocutory application for temporary injunction. It is not in dispute now before this Court that as per Ext.P9 in O.P.(C)No. 870/2015, an interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff after hearing both sides. It is also not in dispute before this Court that against that order, the aggrieved party has filed a C.M.A. before the appropriate court and it is still pending. It is also not disputed before this Court that there is no interim order staying the operation of the order passed by the trial court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the suit.