Dismissed

Parameswaran v. the Secretary ,Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016WP(C)/464/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The Court observed that the petitioner had filed a civil suit wherein no injunction was obtained. The Court held that the matter would be regulated by the decision in the civil suit and that the respondents had not been properly served, rendering the writ petition outdated.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

Parameswaran Vs the Secretary ,Municipal Corporation — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 464 of 2009 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PARAMESWARAN, KAMAKSHY CONSTRUCTIONS, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS,, PAZHAYA NADAKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY,ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,, THRISSUR.

¶12

3. ALAMELU AMMAL, ULLATTU MADOM, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS, PAZHAYA NADAKAVU,, THRISSUR.

¶13

4. ANANDANARAYANAN, ULLATTU MADOM, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS PAZHAYA NADAKAVU,, THRISSUR.

¶14

5. SUBHALAKSHMI, ULLATTU MADOM, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS, PAZHAYA NADAKAU,, THRISSUR.

¶15

6. NADARAJAN, ULLATTU MADOM, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS,, PAZHAYA NADAKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶16

7. ANANTHALAKSHMI, ULLATTU MADOM, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS, PAZHAYA NADAKAVU,, THRISSUR.

¶17

8. ANANTHANARAYANAN, ULLATTU MADOM, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS,, PAZHAYA NADAKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶18

9. KRISHNAKUMAR, ULLATTU MADOM, TEMPLE TREE APARTMENTS PAZHAYA NADAKAVU,, THRISSUR.

¶19

R,R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R,R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R,R3,6 & 7 BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR R,R1&2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R,R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶22

=====================

¶23

W.P.(C) No.464 of 2009 - E

¶24

======================

¶25

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner was before this Court contending that

¶28

he had filed a suit before the Munsiffs Court, Thrissur against respondents 3 to 9, who are attempting to transfer the jenm right on the land and register the flat; as mentioned in Ext.P4 plaint in the name of the 3^rd respondent and some others. Obviously, the civil suit was filed in which no injunction was obtained and hence, the petitioner was before this Court.

¶29

There was no interim order granted and despite

¶30

several opportunities granted, respondents 5 and 8 have not been served. At this distance of time, this Court is of the opinion that nothing survives in the writ petition. Definitely, the civil suit would also have been concluded as of now and the subject

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.464 of 2009 - E

¶33

matter of the writ petition would be regulated by the decision in O.S. No.126/2007 filed before the Munsiffs Court, Thrissur.

¶34

The writ petition hence would stand dismissed as

¶35

infructuous, with the above observations.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

¶38

SB/01/07//2016

¶39

// true copy //

¶40

P.A to Judge.

Parameswaran v. the Secretary ,Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parameswaran v. the Secretary ,Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leela Bhaskar Vs Amit Meena I.A.S

K P Ramachandran Vs Mohammed Sabir

E.M.Soman Vs District Collector

Suresh Kumar.C Vs Dr.M.Madhavikutty

The Chairman,a.P.M.Transport Public Ltd. Vs P.P.Ouseph

K.K.Hussain Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board