IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9301 of 2010(O)
1. M.A.ZOHRA, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR.SREEKUMAR,
... Respondent
2. MR.CLEMENT, AGED 39 YEARS,
3. CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
WP(C) No.9301 of 2010-O
————————————-
Dated 19th March 2010
Judgment
This is a Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P14 order.
2. The petitioner claims to have instituted OS
No.294/09 before the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam, seeking
a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining
defendants 1 and 2 from making further construction of the
building, blocking the light and wind of the petitioner’s
property. There was also a prayer for mandatory injunction
directing the said defendants to demolish the unauthorised
construction on the eastern side of their building.
3. It appears that the defendants filed a counter
claim. A commission seems to have taken out and the
Commissioner has submitted a report and plan. Pursuant
to the submission of the Commissioner’s report and plan,
the defendants filed Ext.P12 amendment application
WPC 9301/10 2
seeking certain modification to their claim. The said
application was objected by the petitioner herein by filing
Ext.P13 counter affidavit. It is stated that without
considering his objections, the Court below allowed the
amendment application filed by the defendants, by Ext.P14
order, reserving the right of the third defendant to file
additional written statement in case any prejudice is
caused to the said defendant. The said order is assailed in
this Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Court below has passed the impugned
order without applying its mind and therefore, it is
unsustainable in law. She also pointed out that the said
order directly affects the petitioner.
5. There is no merit in the above contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The third
defendant filed objections and the other defendants did
not file their objections in time. If the petitioner has any
grievance against that portion of the impugned order, it is
WPC 9301/10 3
for her to agitate the same before the Court below. No
grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order
as the discretion exercised by the Court below does not
seem to be perverse or irregular. This Writ Petition is
devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
WPC 9301/10 4