Dismissed

P.M.Unnikrishna Panicker v. Kavanoor Vattaparambu Kshethra Punarudharana Committee

Kerala HC30 Sept 2016OP(C)/1981/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ petition challenging the Munsiff Court's order which denied police direction under Section 151 CPC. The Court found no evidence of injunction violation and declined to adjudicate the scope of Section 151, directing expedited suit disposal instead.

What did the court decide?

The High Court dismissed the petition, left open the right to file Order 39 Rule 2A application, directed the Munsiff Court to expedite suit disposal within four months.

P.M.Unnikrishna Panicker Vs Kavanoor Vattaparambu Kshethra… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1981 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OS 529/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI, DATED 08-01-2016

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT:

¶8

P.M.UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER,

¶9

S/O. KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, GOVARDHANAM, SOLARD VILLA, POTTAMMAL, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.DILIP SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KAVANOOR VATTAPARAMBU NARIKKOTTIL

¶13

KSHETHRAPUNARUDHARANA COMMITTEE, REP. BY P.RAVEENDRAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. UNNICHIZHI, PANAMPATTA VEEDU, KAVANOOR P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121.

¶14

2. M.A.DINESH, AGE NOT KNOWN, MONGANDAMBALATH ILLAM, SREEVATSAM, VALANCHERI P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676522.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

OP(C).No. 1981 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED IN O.S. 529/2013 DATED 30-11-2013.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.S. 529/2013 DATED 04-02-2014.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT WITH PLAN DATED 11-06-2015.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 3360/14 DATED 08-01-2016.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 511/2015 IN O.S.NO. 529/2013 DATED 3-3-15.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN I.A.NO. 511/2015 IN O.S.NO. 529/2013 DATED 21-3-2015.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 511/2015 DATED 8-1-2016.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 611/2016 DATED 19-02-2016.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 611/2016 IN O.S. 529/2013 DATED 08-06-2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

---------------	--------
EXHIBIT R1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.226/16 BEFORE HON'BLE
	MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI
EXHIBIT R1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF AR REGISTER
EXHIBIT R1(C)	TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS

¶24

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

¶25

¶26

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

O.P.(C) No.1981 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent herein

¶32

filed O.S.529/2013 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri for declaration that they are the owners of the plaint A-schedule property and for a declaration that the property belongs to the plaintiff temple and others have no right over the same. The petitioner herein is the person said to be in possession of the property and according to them there is a small temple inside which was in a dilapidated condition and the suit was filed by the first respondent committee claims to be having some right over the property and the temple and when they wanted to maintain the temple, it was alleged to have been obstructed by the petitioner, the suit was filed. The petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit filed I.A.511/2015 in O.S.529/2013 under order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction against the first respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and make any construction therein. After hearing both sides, interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent who is the first

¶33

O.P.(C) No.1981 of 2016

¶34

¶35

respondent herein and his men from trespassing into the property and making any construction in the petition schedule property or commit any act of waste therein by Ext.P7 order. Since the first respondent herein tried to violate that order, petitioner filed Ext.P8 application for issuing a direction to the Circle Inspector of Police, Manjeri to implement the interim injunction order granted in their favour. The court below by Ext.P9 order dismissed the application stating that the remedy of the petitioner is to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A for enforcement of the injunction order and also on the ground that there is no evidence to show that they are attempting to violate the injunction. This order is being challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition.

¶36

Heard Sri.Sreekumar Chelur, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Satheesan, counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶37

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the court below was not justified in stating that the court has no power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the police to implement the order and further if the court felt that the remedy of the petitioner is to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A, since the petitioner had alleged violation, this could have been treated by the

¶38

O.P.(C) No.1981 of 2016

¶39

¶40

court below as an application under Order 39 Rule 2A and proceeded with the same by conducting proper enquiry. On the other hand, the counsel for the first respondent submitted that they have not violated the injunction order and they have no intention to violate the order as well.

¶41

Considering the fact that there is no evidence before the court below to come to the conclusion that there was any attempt on the part of the first respondent to violate the injunction order as claimed in the petition, it cannot be said that court below was not justified in not invoking the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further the counsel for the first respondent also submitted before this court that they have not violated the interim injunction granted and they have no intension to violate the same as well during the pendency of the suit. The suit is ripe for trial and the disposal of the suit itself can be expedite.

¶42

I am not at this stage and the circumstances of the case raised resulting in filing the suit going into the question as to whether invoking the power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, court can direct the police to enforce the interim injunction granted. There may be cases where court cannot be said to be without power when the injunction order passed by the court below is floated by the

¶43

O.P.(C) No.1981 of 2016

¶44

¶45

respondents to get the same enforced by a process known to law. There is a remedy provided under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure also for the person alleging violation to enforce the injunction order and prosecute the person who violated the injunction order, which also can be resorted to by the parties. However considering the fact that the counsel for the first respondent had submitted that they have no intention to violate the injunction order and they have not violated the same, this court feels that there is no necessity to go into those aspects in this petition and that will interfere with the order passed by the court below as the court below also found that there was no prima facie evidence or material to come to the conclusion that there is an attempt on the part of the respondent therein making attempt to violate the injunction order granted. However considering the fact that the case is of the year 2013 and the pleadings are over, court can expedite disposal of the case considering the nature of relief claimed by the parties. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶46

This court is not incline to interfere with the order passed by the court below in I.A.611/2016 in O.S.529/2013 pending before the Munsiff Court, Manjeri, but leaving open the right of the petitioner to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil

¶47

O.P.(C) No.1981 of 2016

¶48

¶49

Procedure, if he had a grievance that the interim order granted by the court below has been violated by the first respondent. If such an application is filed, the court below is directed to consider that application also and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the case is of the year 2013, court below is directed to expedite disposal of the suit as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. If any application for violation of injunction order is filed, then that also can be considered by the court below along with the suit.

¶50

With the above direction and observation the petition is disposed of.

¶51

Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court, immediately.

¶52

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶53

//True Copy//

¶54

P.A. to Judge

¶55

P.M.Unnikrishna Panicker v. Kavanoor Vattaparambu Kshethra Punarudharana Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Unnikrishna Panicker v. Kavanoor Vattaparambu Kshethra Punarudharana Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujeeb Rahman Vs State of Kerala

George Joseph Vs Thressa George

Sajitha Kumari Vs Prajith

Vasudevan Nair Vs Gopalakrishnan Nair

Beena Kannu Vs State of Kerala

Tharayil Sadhana Vs Tharayil Ramachandran