High Court Kerala High Court

M.J.Mohan vs Prasanna Vihar Welfare … on 22 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.J.Mohan vs Prasanna Vihar Welfare … on 22 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26541 of 2009(O)


1. M.J.MOHAN, S/O.M.T.JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PRASANNA VIHAR WELFARE MAINTENANCE
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.S.NAIR, LT. COL. (RETIRED),

3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

4. ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.C.CHARLES

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :22/09/2009

 O R D E R
            S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
          -----------------------------
            W.P.(C).No.26541 OF 2009
           --------------------------
    Dated this the 22nd day of September 2009
     -------------------------------------


                     JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed seeking the

following reliefs.

i) Call for the records leading to the

issuance of Ext.P4 and quash the same by the

issuance of writ of certiorari.

ii) To direct the court below to expedite

the trial in O.S No.150/2009 pending before the

Munsiff Court, Ernakulam.

iii) To issue any other order, direction

that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts

and circumstances of the case.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S

No.150 of 2009 on the file of Munsiff Court,

Ernakulam. Petitioner continues in occupation of a

room in the building belonging to the first

W.P.(C).No.26541 OF 2009 Page numbers

respondent, Society on the basis of the terms and

conditions covered by an agreement. Petitioner

moved for having additional electric connection to

the room under his occupation before the

Electricity Board. Such additional connection

could be provided to the room in his occupation

only if consent is given by the owner, the first

respondent. That consent being declined, the

petitioner filed the above suit seeking a decree of

mandatory injunction directing the first

respondents, Society, and also its president,

impleaded as the second defendant, to grant such

consent. With the suit, an application for interim

injunction as identical to the relief covered by

the decree sought for was also urged for. First

and second respondents resisted that application

contending that, without authority, the petitioner

had bifurcated the room under his occupation with

intend to lease out one portion of that room to

another, and so much so, the consent sought for

W.P.(C).No.26541 OF 2009 Page numbers

additional electric connection cannot be granted.

The learned Munsiff, negativing the objections

raised by the first and second respondents allowed

the application for interim injunction, against

which those respondents preferred an appeal. The

learned District Judge after hearing both sides

allowed the appeal and vacated the order of interim

injunction. Propriety and correctness of the

judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in

the appeal is challenged in the writ petition

invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with

this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

3. The third respondent has entered

appearance through counsel. I heard the learned

counsel for the petitioner and also the third

respondent. Having regard to the submissions made

and taking note of the facts and circumstances

presented, I find no notice to the 1st ,2nd and 4th

W.P.(C).No.26541 OF 2009 Page numbers

respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed

with. I do not want to express any opinion on the

merits of the suit, nor of the interim injunction

applied for by the plaintiff. Perusing Ext.P4

judgment of learned District Judge, I find no

illegality or impropriety warranting interference

in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction of this

court. Having regard to the submissions made by

the respective counsel and perusing Ext.P4 judgment

of the learned District Judge, I find, it will not

be proper and appropriate for this court to pass

any order as requested for the petitioner so as to

compel the first and second respondents to give

consent for taking additional electric connection

to the shop room under the occupation of the

petitioner. Without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the orders passed by the learned Munsiff

and also Ext.P4 judgment of the learned District

Judge, I direct the trial court to dispose the suit

giving it top priority in hearing as expeditiously

W.P.(C).No.26541 OF 2009 Page numbers

as possible, at any rate, within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Writ petition is disposed with the above

directions. Send a copy of the judgment to the

Munsiff Court concerned forthwith.

Sd/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE

vdv