High Court Kerala High Court

Eldho vs Manual on 22 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Eldho vs Manual on 22 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(C).No. 772 of 2010(O)


1. ELDHO, S/O.SLEEBA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MANUAL, S/O.JACOB, PEECHAPPILLIL HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :22/11/2010

 O R D E R
                           THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                          --------------------------------------
                             O.P.(C) No.772 of 2010
                          --------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010.

                                    JUDGMENT

Heard counsel on both sides.

2. Parties are again before me with this petition filed under Article 227

of the Constitution. They had been to this Court with W.P.(C) Nos.4486 of 2010

and 21130 of 2010 which I disposed of as per judgment dated September 17,

2010 permitting respondent herein, owner of the metal crusher unit and in

whose favour licence issued by the local authority stands, to run the metal

crusher unit until disposal of the suit. Petitioner approached this Court with

R.P.Nos.996 of 2010 and 997 of 2010 seeking review of judgment dated

September 17, 2010. Those petitions were dismissed by order dated November

9, 2010. Now the case of petitioner is that challenging the judgment dated

September 17, 2010 he has approached the Supreme Court with a Special

Leave Petition and that petition is coming up for hearing on 29.11.2010(as

learned counsel is instructed to submit). Learned counsel wants this Court to

direct respondent to maintain status quo until 30.11.2010.

3. This Court while disposing of the Writ Petitions by judgment dated

September 17, 2010 and while permitting the respondent to run the metal

crusher unit had imposed certain conditions on him and directed that on

compliance of those conditions learned Sub Judge shall issue a formal order

OP(C) No.772/2010

2

granting permission to the respondent to run the metal crusher unit. Accordingly,

respondent after allegedly complying with the conditions approached learned

Sub Judge with I.A. No.1606 of 2010 seeking a formal order granting permission

to run the metal crusher unit. It is in the meantime that petitioner has

approached this Court with this petition.

4. I do not find reason to prevent learned Sub Judge from passing

orders on I.A.No.1606 of 2010. I make it clear that notwithstanding the order I

am proposing to pass on this petition it will be open to the learned Sub Judge to

pass orders on I.A.No.1606 of 2010 pursuant to the judgment dated September

17, 2010 of this Court. But, in the light of the submission of the learned counsel

that petitioner has approached the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition

it is only appropriate to direct respondent not to start the metal crusher unit until

5.00 p.m. on 30.11.2010 or, till interim order is passed by the Supreme Court,

whichever is earlier.

Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines:

i. Respondent is directed not to start running of the metal

crusher unit till 30.11.2010, 5.00 p.m. or, till the Supreme Court passed interim

orders in the matter, whichever is earlier.

ii. Respondent is directed, until then not to remove any

structure from the suit property.

OP(C) No.772/2010

3

iii. I make it clear that this order will not prevent learned Sub

Judge, Muvattupuzha from passing order on I.A.No.1606 of 2010 pursuant to

the judgment of this Court dated September 17, 2010.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks