IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34357 of 2008(M)
1. P.G.GEEVARGHESE, ADVOCATE, AGED 58,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.S.BABU, THURUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. REMA BABU OF DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :21/11/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)No.34357 of 2008 M
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.280/07 on
the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla. The
respondents/plaintiffs instituted the said suit for
a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining the petitioner/defendant from
dismantling or destroying the Cable T.V. line drawn
through Item No.2 pathway and sought for an interim
order of injunction by filing I.A.No.1294/07. The
trial court considered the said application on
merits and passed Exhibit P1 order restraining the
petitioner from dismantling or destroying the Cable
T.V. line drawn through Item No.2 pathway till the
disposal of the suit. Petitioner assailed the said
order filing C.M.A.No.15/07 before the Sub Court,
Thiruvalla and the appellate court dismissed the
appeal, but without costs. It is assailing Exhibits
P1 and P2 concurrent orders of the courts below
that this writ petition is filed by the defendant.
WPC 34357/08 2
2. Exhibit P3 is the sale deed executed by the
petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondents/
plaintiffs in relation to 12 cents of property,
which lies adjacent to the property of the
defendant. In Exhibit P3, petitioner/defendant has
provided facilities to the respondents/plaintiffs
to have access to the said property sold to them
through his private pathway having a width of 12
feet for the purpose of vehicular traffic and for
drawing electric line, water line, telephone line,
etc.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that no
permission had been granted to draw cable for
connection being given to the television and
therefore, the respondents are not entitled to have
that facility. It is not stated in Exhibit P3 that
no cable line can be drawn for giving connection to
the television. By the grant made in Exhibit P3,
it is clear that what was intended to be given to
the respondents/plaintiffs is facility to enjoy the
WPC 34357/08 3
property assigned, constructing building and
availing all modern facilities. The present stand
taken by the petitioner/defendant can only be
viewed as a stand taken on account of jealousy to
harass the respondents/plaintiffs and the stand
taken by him is ill-conceived and with mala fides.
This writ petition is devoid of any merit and
is, hence, dismissed.
21st November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv