COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
Matter remitted to court below to reconsider construction permission in undisputed area within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/19TH POUSHA, 1938
OP(C).No. 23 of 2017 (O)
PETITIONER(S):
K.S LAKSHMANAN NAIR, S/O SANKARAN NAIR, KORATTIKKUNNEL(H), KARUNECHIKARA, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STEPHEN JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, KAPPUKALAYIL HOUSE, KARUNECHIKARA, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK- 686 507.
2. RAMACHANDRAN S/O NARAYANAN, THAZHAMPLACKIL (H) KARUNECHIKARA, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK- 686 507.
3. MATHEW JOSEPH, S/O UTHUPPAN, KOOTTAPALAYIL (H), KARUNECHIKARA, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK- 686 507.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
OP(C).No. 23 of 2017 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS- NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------O.P.(C).No.23 of 2017
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
In a suit where the width of a road is the subject matter of the issue, an injunction order is passed against defendant from constructing a compound wall. The defendant filed an application for clarification to permit defendant to construct compound wall purportedly in an undisputed area as per the Commission Report. The Commission Report says that present width of road is 17 feet. However, in the suit, plaintiff as well as Government contend that the width of road is 8 mteres. Any how the matter is regarding the width of the road. Therefore, no construction in a disputed area, cannot be permitted until the suit is concluded. However, in the light of interim injunction order, court below can permit the petitioner herein to construct compound wall in any undisputed area. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the court below to reconsider whether the petitioner can be permitted to construct compound wall in any
O.P.(C).No.23/2017
2
undisputed area in the presence of the Commissioner. The court below shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months.
Sd/-
(A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE)
The observation “plaintiff as well as the Government contend that the width of the road is 8 meters” occurring in the 4th sentence of the judgment dated 09.01.2017 in O.P.(C) No.23/2017 is corrected and modified as “plaintiff contend that the width of road is 8 meters”, vide order dated 31.01.2017 in I.A.No.97/2017 in O.P(C) No.23/2017.
Sd/Registrar (Judicial)
DG
O.P.(C).No.23/2017 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a party can be permitted to construct a compound wall in a disputed road area pending conclusion of suit.
K.S LAKSHMANAN NAIR
STEPHEN JOSEPH
RAMACHANDRAN
MATHEW JOSEPH
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
