IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32894 of 2004(N)
1. SUMATHI, D/O.ROSILY, TC 76/47,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. B.G.JAYASREE, MITHRALAYAM,
... Respondent
2. SASI, TC.76/47, S.S.BHAVAN, ANAYARA,
3. RAJAMMA, KUSAVANKOTTUKONATHU
4. INDIRA BAI, KUSAVANKOTTUKONATHU
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJESH
For Respondent :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :06/07/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 32894 OF 2004
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ext.P4 order of the Additional Munsiff, Nedumangad on IA
No.977/04 filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff commanding the removal
of an obstruction placed by the petitioner-first defendant and others on
suit C schedule path way is under challenge in this writ petition initiated
by the 1st defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is conceded
in the writ petition itself that against Ext.P4 order the petitioner had filed
CMA No. 8/04 before the Sub Court, Nedumangad and that the above
CMA was dismissed by the Sub Court on the ground that Ext.P4 is not
an appealable order. It is also conceded in the writ petition that the
petitioner filed WP(C) No.19968/04 challenging the order of the Sub
Court dismissing CMA No.8/04and that this Court dismissed WP(C)
No.19968/04.
2. But the petitioner tries to maintain this writ petition on the theory
that the order impugned in WP(C) 19968/04 was the judgment in CMA
No.8/04 which was one of the dismissal of the CMA on the ground of
maintainability and that what has been confirmed by this Court under the
judgment in WP(C) 19968/04 is only the judgment in CMA No.8/04 and
therefore their cannot be any merger of Ext.P4 with this Court’s
WPC No.32894 of 2004
2
judgment in WP(C) No.19968/04.
I have gone through the judgment in WP(C)19968/04 I notice that
this Court has examined the merits of Ext.P4 and has refused to
interfere with the same. All the grounds raised in this Writ Petition will
stand repelled in view of the judgment of this Court in WP(C)19968/04.
The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. I however, refrain from awarding
cost to the 1st respondent lest the same should reflect badly on the
counsel for the petitioner who made very enthusiastic and fairly learned
submissions before me.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No.32894 of 2004
3