1. The question arising for consideration in the Original Petition is whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would set aside an ad interim order of injunction granted by the trial court, challenged by an affected person who is not a party to the suit.

2. From the pleadings, documents and the submissions made by the counsel, the following facts are revealed: Guruvayur Devaswom (hereinafter referred to as `Devaswom') invited competitive tenders for the right to take photographs of the devotees in connection with "Choroon" and "Thulabharam", and video films of "Chembai Sangeethotsavam" for the period from 1.6.2011 to 31.5.2012. The tenderers should be persons proficient in photography and who run studio. Earnest Money Deposit of Rupees one lakh should be made by the tenderer. The tenders were to be submitted before 3 PM on 24-3-2011. Tenders were to be opened at 3.30 PM on the same day. The person who quotes the highest tender would be conferred the right. He has to remit half of the tender amount within ten days. The balance amount should be deposited within three months.

3. The petitioner (O.R.Manoj, the proprietor of Avani Studio) submitted a tender for Rs.85,55,555/-. He quoted the highest amount. K.V.Pramod of K.V.P.Studio quoted Rs.82,53,313/-. Pradeep. U., the second respondent, quoted Rs.34,75,000/-.

4. After the tenders were opened, Pradeep (the second respondent) produced copy of an ad interim order of injunction granted by the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad in I.A.No.1713 of 2011 in O.S.No.366 of 2011. The order of injunction is to the effect that the respondents in the I.A./defendants in the suit shall not participate in the tender mentioned above, either by themselves or through relatives, friends, agents or benamis or in the name of Avani Studio, the benami. Obeying the injunction order, the Devaswom did not finalise the tender proceedings.

5. The ad interim order of injunction referred to above (Exhibit P4) is challenged by the petitioner in the Original Petition.

6. The petitioner is not a party to O.S.No.366 of 2011 filed by Pradeep. Though mention is made in the plaint and in the application for temporary injunction about Avani Studio, the petitioner was not arrayed as a defendant in the suit. Guruvayur Devaswom, who invited tenders was also not made a party to the suit. The defendants in the suit are Prasad (3rd respondent) and Beena Prasad (4th respondent- wife of the 3rd respondent).

7. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.366 of 2011, in brief, is as follows. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant (Beena Prasad) were the successful bidders for the right to take photographs for the year 2009-10, in the temple owned by the Guruvayur Devaswom. They entered into a partnership under the name and style "THANA Digital studio". Disputes arose between the partners on account of the unnecessary intervention of the first defendant. This led to O.S.No.636 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff in the present suit. The disputes were settled on mediation and an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. As per the agreement, the second defendant retired from the partnership. The plaintiff agreed to pay Rupees fifty lakhs to the second defendant. Thereafter, the studio was being run as a proprietary concern by the plaintiff. Disputes arose regarding the payment to the second defendant. The second defendant filed O.S.No.60 of 2011. The parties agreed to settle that case also and a statement was prepared in the presence of the mediator. On payment of the amount to the second defendant, it was agreed that she would withdraw O.S.No.60 of 2011. It was also agreed that the defendants would not participate in the tender for taking photographs under the Devaswom, either by themselves or through near relatives, for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Contrary to the said agreement, the defendants attempted to participate in the tender for 2011-12