IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27949 of 2009(O)
1. RATHNAKARAN, AGED 39,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRESIDENT,
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.SRINATH GIRISH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :06/10/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27949 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“To set aside Exhibit P8 order and direct the
respondents to answer on oath the interrogatories
contained in Ext.P6.”
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.133 of 2008 on the
file of the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. Suit is one for injunction to
restrain the defendants from obstructing or preventing the use of
B schedule way as ingress and egress to plaint A schedule
property. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. Plaintiff claimed the
decree sought for alleging that he has got a right of prescriptive
easement and also right of easement by necessity over B
schedule way. Defendants resisted the suit claim by filing a
written statement refuting the claims of easement raised by the
plaintiff. Plaintiff moved an application for serving interrogatories
on the defendant to answer certain questions raised in the
application. Ext.P6 is the copy of that application. Defendants
filed objections to that petition. Ext.P7 is the copy of the
W.P.(C).No.27949 of 2009 – O
2
petition. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed
Ext.P7 application vide Ext.P8 order. Propriety and correctness of
Ext.P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.
Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the
facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the
respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with.
4. The interrogatories raised in Ext.P6 application,
according to the counsel for the petitioner, are relevant and
necessary for proper adjudication of the suit on its merits. Ext.P8
order passed by the court below dismissing Ext.P6 application is
improper and incorrect, submits the counsel. Perusing Ext.P8
order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find no impropriety or
illegality. Admitting the title of the defendants over the suit
property, plaintiff sought for a decree of injunction setting forth
the claim of prescriptive easement over B schedule way. Then
filing interrogatories to get particulars of the title deeds, survey
W.P.(C).No.27949 of 2009 – O
3
numbers etc., of the plaintiff over the property is quite
unnecessary and further irrelevant in the adjudication of the suit.
Defendants during the pendency of the suit has blocked the
pathway by putting up construction is canvassed for raising a
question by way of interrogatory whether they have obtained
permission from the local authority for putting up such
construction. Irrespective of the question whether permission
was obtained or not by the plaintiff can sustain his right of
easement and the construction had been made during the
pendency of the suit, needless to point out, it will not in any way
affect the right of the plaintiff to get a decree sought for in the
suit. On that count also, I find that the interrogatory filed by the
plaintiff was not relevant as held by the learned Munsiff.
Writ petition lacks merit, and it is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-