IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31035 of 2009(O)
1. BIJU THOMAS,MEVILETHU,25/126 C,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADUL SHUKUR,CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. RELIANCE INFRATEL LTD.,S.A.ROAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C).No.31035 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November 2009
-------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No. 478
of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court,
Ernakulam. Suit is for injunction and the
respondents are the defendants. Injunction sought
for is to restrain the defendants from constructing
and activating a mobile tower over the top of a
building in which the petitioner is also stated to
be in occupation of one of the flats. Activating
the mobile tower in such a building is injurious to
the health and well being of the occupants
including the petitioner appears to be the case
canvassed by the petitioner among other grounds,
for seeking an interim decree of injunction which
was initially allowed by the learned Munsiff but
later vacated considering objections raised by the
W.P.(C).No.31035 OF 2009 Page numbers
defendants. Appeal preferred by the
petitioner/plaintiff challenging the correctness of
the order passed by the learned Munsiff, it is
submitted, has been unsuccessful as the District
Judge declined to interfere with the order passed
on the interlocutory application for injunction.
Petitioner has applied for getting a copy of the
judgment but it has not been served so far. Till a
copy is served, the status quo has to be maintained
as he intends to challenge the correctness of the
judgment before this court and, further, a
direction/order has to be issued to the court below
for furnishing the copy of the judgment are the
reliefs claimed in the petition invoking the extra
ordinary jurisdiction vested with this court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Having regard to the submissions made
and taking note of the facts and circumstances
presented, I direct the court below to furnish a
W.P.(C).No.31035 OF 2009 Page numbers
copy of the judgment in C.M.A No.74 of 2009, if
applied for, within one week from the date of
receipt/ production of this judgment. So far as
the direction sought for by the petitioner to
restrain the construction and activation of the
mobile tower, I find it is not proper to pass any
such order without giving notice to the opposite
party. Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv