Mathew v. Paily
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court of Kerala set aside the lower court's order disallowing a petition for Advocate Commissioner appointment in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a road. The Court held that precise dimensions are essential for executability.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order setting aside; I.A.No.736 of 2011 allowed; original petition disposed of.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/23RD KARTHIKA 1934
OP(C).No. 44 of 2012 (O)
---------------------------------IA.NO.736/2011 IN OS.NO.156/2010 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALA PETITIONERS:
1. MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.CHERIYATHU, KANJIRATHUMKAL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY KARA, MONIPPALLY VILLAGE.
2. ELSAMMA MATHEW W/O.MATHEW, KANJIRATHUMKAL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY KARA, MONIPPALLY VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT
PAILY
S/O.MATHAI, AGED 76 YEARS,PULLAPRA PUTHENPURAYIL, MONIPPALLY KARA, MONIPPALLY VILLAGE-686 636.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order disallowing the prayer for deputation of Advocate Commissioner for local inspection should be set aside when the precise dimensions of the subject property are required for executabi
Whether the admitted existence of a road suffices to dispense with the need for local inspection to ascertain its length and width.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mathew & Ors.
- respondent
Paily
Coram
V.Chitambaresh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court