The petitioners are the appellant in C.M.A.No. 78 of 2008 on the files of the District Court, Ernakulam as well as the respondents in I.A.No.11685 of 2006 in O.S.No.1397 of 2007 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. I.A.No.11685/2006 is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C, seeking an order of interim prohibitory injunction restraining the 5th respondent from occupying or using the godown portion in the ground floor of the plaint scheduled building under respondents 1 to 3 or interfering with the petitioners joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property in any manner, till the disposal of the above suit or in the alternative, direct the 5th respondent to deposit an amount of ₹ 15,000/- per month as compensation for use and occupation of the godown portion, with liability to pay ₹ 7,500/- (50%) directly W.P.(C).No.29925 of 2009 2 to the petitioners every month pending disposal of the above suit without default. The trial court granted the alternative relief only and directed the 5th respondent to deposit 3/7 of ₹ 15,000/- before the court from 08/12/2006 till disposal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners herein and the 5th respondent filed separate appeals as C.M.A.Nos.78 of 2008 and 70 of 2008 respectively before the appellate court. After re-appreciating the findings of the trial court, the appellate court modified the order granted by the trial court. The appellant in C.M.A.No.70 of 2008 was directed to deposit monthly rental of ₹ 7,000/- on the first day of English calendar, in Munsiff Court towards rent from the date of the order in I.A.11685/06 by the Munsiff, till the disposal of the suit and that the Munsiff shall apportion the amount at the time of trial, by taking into consideration of the amount already received by the appellants in C.M.A 78 of 2008 as per the receipts filed in CMA 70 of 2008. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment passed in CMA 78 of 2008.
W.P.(C).No.29925 of 2009 3
2. Going by the records, it is seen that this writ petition was filed as early on 21st October, 2009 and about 5 years have been elapsed after filing of this writ petition. Now, the pleadings are complete in the original suit and awaiting for commission report and trial will be commenced immediately on receipt of the commission report. In my view, by the long lapse of time, the writ petition challenging the interim order has lost its significance as the interim order survives only up to the final judgment which can be passed immediately. Needless to say, at the fag-end of the pre-trial stage, this writ petition does not deserve any consideration on merits.
3. Having regard to the above view, I find that an early disposal of original suit itself is a proper remedy that can be given to both parties. The trial court is directed to dispose of the original suit itself within a period of four months from today. Needless to say, the trial court shall take urgent steps to expedite the proceedings. The trial court shall pass the final judgment, untrammeled by any of W.P.(C).No.29925 of 2009 4 the findings in the impugned order and judgment under challenge.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.