High Court Kerala High Court

Cherukattumanayil Raveendran vs Kadambil Balakrishnan on 15 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
Cherukattumanayil Raveendran vs Kadambil Balakrishnan on 15 April, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12364 of 2009(O)


1. CHERUKATTUMANAYIL RAVEENDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KADAMBIL BALAKRISHNAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :15/04/2009

 O R D E R
                          THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                         W.P(C) No.12364 of 2009
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                Dated this the 15th        day of April,   2009

                               J U D G M E N T

———————-

Respondent-Defendant in I.A. No.890 of 2009 in O.S. No.129 of

2009 of the Munsiff’s Court, Tirur is the petitioner before me.

Respondent herein filed the suit for a decree for fixation of boundary

between plaint A and B schedules, for injunction against trespass into

B schedule property and construction of building in the plaint A

schedule in violation of the building rules. Application was resisted by

the petitioner on several grounds including that the construction of

the school building in the A schedule has to be completed with the

funds allotted from the Block Panchayat Office. Petitioner’s grievance

is that though I.A. No.890 of 2009 was heard on 3.4.2009 and posted

for orders on 8.4.2009 that application now stands posted on

21.5.2009. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though what is

prayed for in the suit is only injunction against construction of building

in plaint A schedule in violation of the building rules a blanket interim

order of injunction against any sort of construction in plaint A schedule

is grated. He therefore filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the interim order of

injunction will not prevent the petitioner from continuing with the

W.P(C) No.12364 of 2009

-: 2 :-

construction of the building in plaint A schedule on the basis of Ext.P8

permit and approved plan and seeking other reliefs.

2. Since the court of Munsiff has been closed for vacation and

the District Court Manjeri is functioning as the Vacation Court, the

proper course open to the petitioner is to file appropriate application

before that Vacation court under the provisions of the Civil Courts Act

to take up the application pending in the Munsiff’s Court and seek

appropriate reliefs. That being the proper and efficacious remedy

available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ

Petition.

Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to

the right of the petitioner to file appropriate application before the

vacation court.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv

W.P(C) No.12364 of 2009

-: 3 :-

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

===================
S.A. NO. OF 2001
===================

J U D G M E N T

APRIL, 2009