J U D G M E N T

The petitioner runs a crusher unit with valid permits and licences. The 5^th respondent runs a quarry. According to the 5^th respondent, he has entered into an agreement with the petitioner whereby he advanced certain sum of money to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner would transfer 50% of the share over the crusher unit. It appears that, thereafter dispute arose between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, which resulted in the institution of a suit by the 5^th respondent against the petitioner before the Munsiff Court, Changanassery, as O.S.No.198 of 2024. The petitioner, along with the plaint, filed an application for interim injunction. The prayer in the interim injunction application is as follows:-

To pass an order of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants or men under them from transferring the plaint A(a) schedule crusher unit as per the agreement dated 01.07.2020 in such a way as to affected the right and title of the petitioner and from causing any actions detrimental to the plaintiff's rights and title over the plaint schedule A(a) crusher unit, obstructing the operation of the said crusher unit by the plaintiff, removing the raw materials stored by the plaintiff in plaint A schedule property and from committing any act of waste therein in the plaint A schedule property.

2. The learned Munsiff passed an order of status quo.

Ext.P10 would show that a copy of the said status quo order was forwarded by the learned Munsiff to respondents 3 and 4. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P11 notice to the petitioner directing him to maintain status quo. The 4^th respondent issued Ext.P12 stop memo to the petitioner, directing him not to remove the stock from the crusher unit or to transact the business. It is challenging Exts.P11 and P12, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri.R.N.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Haridas P, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exts.P11 and P12 were issued by the respondents 3 and 4 without authority and misinterpreting the status quo order passed by the Munsiff Court. The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that the status quo order passed by the Munsiff Court includes maintaining status quo with regard to removal of raw materials stored by the petitioner in the plaint A schedule property and hence respondents 3 and 4 were justified in issuing Exts.P11 and P12. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Exts.P11 and P12 were passed by the respondents 3 and 4 respectively bonafidely to comply with the directions of the learned Munsiff.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is running the crusher unit with valid licences and permits. According to the 5^th respondent, as per the agreement allegedly executed between him and the petitioner, the petitioner had agreed to transfer 50% of the share over the crusher unit to him. The main relief sought in the plaint has been sought in the interim injunction application as well. It is pertinent to note that no interim injunction was granted by the learned Munsiff. On the other hand, what was granted was a status quo order, that too an ex- parte one. It appears that the petitioner has entered appearance before the Munsiff Court and filed a counter statement. However, before finally hearing the interim injunction application, the 4^th respondent hastily issued the stop memo. The reason shown in Ext.P12 stop memo is that, the Munsiff Court had ordered status quo. The 4^th respondent interpreted the said status quo order as one restraining the petitioner from removing the stock from the crusher unit or transacting business in the crusher unit. The status quo order passed by the Munsiff cannot at all be interpreted so.

6. In the absence of a specific order restraining the petitioner fr