The absence of a prima facie case can prevent the granting of injunctions, even in disputes involving public properties.

JUDGMENT

This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the court below, challenging Ext.P4 passed by the trial court confirmed in Ext.P5 by the appellate court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners filed Ext.P1 suit as OS.No.143/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara seeking certain rights alleging that they are the members of the family and owners of the temple and they have got some right in the petition schedule property. They also filed Ext.P2 application as IA.No.1177/2012 for injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction or committing any act of waste in the disputed property and the respondents filed a counter by producing Ext.P3 agreement stating that the petitioners have no right over the property and it has been given for dedication to the public and the school is being conducted in the property. After hearing both sides and after considering the documentary evidence produced, the Sub Judge by Ext.P4 order dismissed the application. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing CMA.No.38/2013 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was made over to the Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram for disposal and learned Additional District Judge by Ext.P5 judgment dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the court below.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri. Ram Mohan G, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 6.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the temple is conducting a ritual in the property and it is a paddy field. If the paddy filed is filled up and the trees are cut and removed, it will cause hardship to the plaintiffs if ultimately they win the suit. They also contended that, for the time being a status quo order may be passed and direct the court below to dispose of the suit within a time frame.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the court below after hearing both sides came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case and passed the impugned order which was confirmed by the appellate court as well. Unless this court is satisfied that it is a perverse order, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. Further there was an earlier suit as OS.No.75/2009 filed by some of the members of the family seeking the same relief under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure , that reached this court and a writ petition was filed and that writ petition was disposed of by this court granting permission to the respondents to construct building in the property. Thereafter the suit was withdrawn. It is thereafter that the present suit has been filed with some malafide intention to claim right over the property owned by public endowment and the trees are being cut since they are standing in a dangerous condition causing threat to the students coming to the school and a complaint has been made to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the same.

6. Admittedly there was an earlier suit as OSNo.75/2009 filed by some of the members of the family to which the present petitioners belong under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and later that suit was withdrawn. It is also seen from Ext.R1(d) order of this court in W.P.(C).No.16342/2010 dated 13.8.2010 that after hearing both sides this court has vacated the interim order of stay granted and modified the same permitting the school authorities to proceed with the construction of the building in the property but observed that in all other respects the order of stay will be in force. But the suit in which this order has been passed, has been withdrawn. So that has no consequence in this matter. It is thereafter that the present suit has been filed by the petitioners claiming certain right over t