High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed @ Kuttippa vs Abdulla Haji on 9 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Muhammed @ Kuttippa vs Abdulla Haji on 9 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36615 of 2007(H)


1. MUHAMMED @ KUTTIPPA, S/O.KOONAM PARAMBIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ABDULLA HAJI, S/O.MUNDAROTTU
                       ...       Respondent

2. HASSAN, S/O.KOONAM PARAMBIL HYDRU HAJI,

3. IBRAHIM, S/O.KOONAMPARAMBIL MUHAMMED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :09/07/2008

 O R D E R
                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                    ...........................................
                   WP(C).No. 36615                OF 2007
                    ............................................
          DATED THIS THE             9th      DAY OF JULY, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Plaintiff in O.S.33 of 2005 on the file of Munsiff Court,

Pattambi is the petitioner. Defendants are respondents. Suit was

filed for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining

defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or

reducing any portion of the property by widening the width of

the way. In the suit, respondents/defendants filed I.A.500 of

2005, an application for appointment of Commission to construct

a laterite padavu to demarcate the southern boundary varambu

of plaint schedule item No.2. Under Ext.P6 order, learned

Munsiff allowed the application. It is challenged in this petition

filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Though notice was served on respondents 1 and 2

personally, they did not appear. Notice on 3rd respondent was

effected by publication. None of the respondents appeared.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

When the question to be decided in the suit include the claim

raised by defendants with regard to the width of the way, which

lies to the south of the plaint schedule property, learned Munsiff

WP(C) 36615/2007 2

was not justified in appointing a Commission and thereby

allowing defendants to construct a boundary wall to the way,

which is a matter to be decided in the suit. In such

circumstances, Ext.P6 order is quashed. Learned Munsiff is

directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-