IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18040 of 2010(O)
1. JOSEPH S/O. KALLELI VEETTIL PAPPU,
... Petitioner
2. ELSY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, THIRUMUDIKUNNU
Vs
1. ANTONY, S/O. CHENGINIYADAM DEVASSY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) NO.18040 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Defendants in O.S. No.71 of 2008 of the court of learned
Munsiff, Chalakkudi and appellants in A.S. No.30 of 2010 of the
court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda are the
petitioners before me seeking interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to quash Ext.P3, order on I.A. No.1071 of 2010
in A.S. No.30 of 2010. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for
injunction to restrain petitioners from running a poultry farm in the
property of petitioners. According to the respondent, petitioners
who were obliged to obtain licence from the local authority to run
the poultry farm did not obtain any such licence and further, the
running of the poultry farm is causing nuisance to the respondent
on account of foul smell emanating from the farm. Petitioners
contended that they are not running any poultry farm but only
raising some fowl for domestic purposes for which no licence is
required. Learned Munsiff recorded evidence of the parties and
came to the conclusion that it is a poultry farm being run without
licence and that it resulted in nuisance to the respondent.
W.P(C) No.18040 of 2010
-: 2 :-
Accordingly decree for prohibitory injunction was granted.
Assailing that judgment and decree petitioners preferred A.S.
No.30 of 2010 in the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda asserting
that they are not running any poultry farm but only raising some
fowl for domestic purposes and for that, no licence is required.
Petitioner wanted operation of judgment and decree in O.S. No.71
of 2008 to be stayed and moved I.A. No.1071 of 2010 for that
purpose. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub
Judge vide Ext.P3, order. That order is sought to be quashed in
this proceeding.
2. I have gone through the order under challenge and
copy of judgment of learned Munsiff. I have also gone through the
discussion of evidence in the judgment.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case this Court is not required to interfere with Ext.P3, order since
it is not a case where learned Sub Judge has either refused to
exercise jurisdiction he has or exercised jurisdiction he did
not have or there is any illegal exercise of the jurisdiction. As
such interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
W.P(C) No.18040 of 2010
-: 3 :-
not warranted. I make it clear that if the preliminary steps are
over it will be open to the petitioner to request learned Sub Judge
for an early disposal of A.S. No.30 of 2010. In case any such
request is made learned Sub Judge shall consider the same and
pass appropriate orders.
With the above observation Writ Petition is closed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv