TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 1st respondent. There, when his mother was contacted and requested to receive the notice she, after contacting the 1st respondent over telephone refused to accept the notice. Since notice was attempted to be served on the mother staying with the 1st respondent and that was refused, there is sufficient service on the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 appear through Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner is a third party to the proceeding before learned Principal Sub Judge,Thalassery and has challenged Ext.P3, order dated 26.03.2013 on I.A. No. 925 of 2013 in O.S. No. 329 of 2012. 3. First respondent filed that suit against respondents 2 and 3 for a decree for prohibitory injunction and to restrain respondents 2 and 3 from allotting const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.10.2012. It is also submitted that learned Sub Judge passed the ex parte, ad interim order of injunction on 08.10.2012. Since Ext.P3, order affects the interest of petitioner who is not a party to the proceeding, that order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be questioned and interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is argued. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 contends that the order of injunction against respondents 2 and 3 is not legal and proper. It is also submitted that the work is already allotted to the petitioner. 7. I am not, in this proceeding on the question whether learned Sub Judge is justified in granting an ex parte, interim order of injunction. I am at the question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have challenged the order of injunction by way of appeal seeking leave of the appellate court. In Manoj Kumar v. Guruvayoor Devaswom (2011(2) KLT 1022) this Court has held that when the order of injunction is per se illegal, it can be challenged in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by any affected person who is not made a party to the suit, without recourse to the remedy by way of appeal. I am inclined to think that petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P3, order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the contentions respondents have raised in the suit and the application for injunction. I also make it clear that I am concerned in this proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
