RAMAKRISHNAN E.G., OLICKAL HOUSE v. THANKAPPAN @ THANKAN, PARACKAL HOUSE
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Jul 2008
- Bench
- M SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ Petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXXIX rr. 1, 2
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Exts.P10 and P13 orders. Learned Munsiff considered the prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable injury that may be caused. Based on the report submitted by the…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: -------------
THANKAPPAN @ THANKAN, PARACKAL HOUSE, PANACHIPARA, KADUMEENCHIRA,KARIKULAM MURI, ATHIKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.
LINUMON, PARACKAL HOUSE, PANACHIPARA, KADUMEENCHIRA, KARIKULAM MURI, ATHIKAYAM VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.22452 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.165/2006 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ranny. Respondents are the defendants. Suit is for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or constructing a way through the plaint schedule property. I.A.1436/2006 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary injunction. Respondents contended that the way has been in existence and they have a right of way through plaint schedule property. A Commission was appointed and the Commissioner submitted a report disclosing existence of the way. Alleging that petitioners obliterated that way respondents filed an application for interim mandatory injunction. Under Ext.P10 order, learned Munsiff found that a W.P.(C)22452/2008 2 way was in existence when the suit was filed and subsequent to the order of injunction granted petitioners obliterated that way. Therefore I.A.1523/2006 filed by respondents for restoration of the way was allowed and I.A.1436/2006 application filed by petitioners was dismissed. Petitioners challenged the order before District Court, Pathanamthitta in CMA 5/2007 and 6/2007. Under Ext.P13 order, learned District Judge reappreciated the materials and confirmed Ext.P10 order and dismissed the appeals. It is challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard.
The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below were not justified in granting an interim mandatory injunction, as respondents have no right of way through plaint schedule property and petitioners are in possession of the W.P.(C)22452/2008 3 entire plaint schedule property. Learned counsel argued that materials produced were not properly appreciated by courts below and Exts.P10 and P13 are to be quashed.
Operative part
On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Exts.P10 and P13 orders. Learned Munsiff considered the prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable injury that may be caused. Based on the report submitted by the Commissioner immediately after filing the report and subsequently it was found that the way which was in existence even before filing of the suit was obliterated subsequent to the suit. It is on that basis an interim mandatory injunction was granted to restore the way to its original position. I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the suit untrammelled by any observations in Ext.P10 or P13 orders or this judgment as expeditiously as W.P.(C)22452/2008 4 possible. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXXIX rr. 1, 2; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Jul 2008. The bench was M SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.