K.O. Antony vs K.O. Pappu on 2 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 28833 of 2006(G)


1. K.O. ANTONY, S/O.OUSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.O. PAPPU, S/O.OUSEPH,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

                For Respondent  :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :02/07/2007

 O R D E R
                         PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                           -------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) No. 28833 OF 2006
                         -----------------------------------
                    Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007

                                  JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 order of the learned Munsiff dismissing the application for

temporary injunction filed by the petitioner and Ext.P6 order of the

learned Sub Judge dismissing an appeal which was preferred against

Ext.P5 are under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution initiated by the plaintiff in the suit.

2. Heard Sri.George Cherian, counsel for the petitioner. He would

place before me the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board

subsequent to the Writ Petition, for my perusal. Even though

Sri.George has addressed me extensively, I do not find any warrant to

invoke the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The Writ Petition is

for setting aside Exts.P5 and P6. It cannot be said that those orders

can be branded as perverse or that they violate law, statutory or settled.

I am also not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel that

those orders results in gross injustice or failure of justice. Not that, I do

not find any merit at all in the submissions which were addressed by the

learned counsel regarding the propriety of the view taken by the learned

Munsiff and confirmed by the appellate court. But what I mean to say is

only that these orders can not be branded as so wholly unreasonable

WPC No.28833 of 2006
2

as to warrant correction. Obviously, it was noticing that position that

this court while admitting the Writ Petition directed maintenance of

status quo as seen from Ext.P2 (a) report and to ensure that there is no

obstruction on the usage of the road in question by the petitioner, I am

of the view that the above order directing maintenance of status quo and

restraining the parties from making obstructions can continue till such

time as the suit is disposed of by the trial court. Even as I repel the

challenge of Exts.P5 and P6, in view of the contours of this Court’s

jurisdiction under Article 227, I dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the

following directions:

The parties will maintain status quo as found by the commissioner

in Ext.R2(a) report and the respondent will not obstruct the usage of the

road in question till such as the suit is disposed of. The court below

shall dispose of the suit at its earliest and uninfluenced by any of the

findings or observations contained in the orders which are impugned in

this case. The learned Munsiff will treat those findings and observations

as provisional and made only for the purpose of the interlocutory

proceedings. The suit shall be decided on the basis of the evidence

which comes on record during the trial at any rate within three months of

receiving copy of this judgment.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt

WPC No.28833 of 2006
3