Disposed

Mobi P.Mathew v. Kochi Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC30 Jan 2019CRP/540/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a Sub Judge's dismissal of an injunction suit regarding alleged obstruction of road access by handrails. The court held that no further directions were needed as the main suit was pending. It directed the trial court to try and dispose of the suit expeditiously and without being hampered by prior appellate findings.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed; directed court below to try and dispose of O.S No.1097 of 2017 expeditiously and untrammelled by findings in the C.M.A.

Mobi P.Mathew Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No. 540 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 58/2017 of I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 02-06-2018

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 1097/2017 of I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 03-11-2017

¶8

REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶9

1 MOBI P.MATHEW AGED 55,S/O P.T.MATHAI,BUSINESS,RESIDING AT PURAPPADATHIL HOUSE,HOUSE NO.38/3430(OLD NO.34/2300B),KANNAYATH ROAD, MAMANGALAM,PALARIVATTOM.P.O,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682025.

¶10

2 MEENA PAUL. AGED 54,W/O MOBI P.MATHEW, BUSINESS,RESIDING AT PURAPPADATHIL HOUSE,HOUSE NO.38/3430(OLD NO.34/2300B),KANNAYATH ROAD, MAMANGALAM,PALARIVATTOM.P.O,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM-682025.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,P.B.NO.1016,COCHIN,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682011.

¶14

2 KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,8TH FLOOR,REVENUE TOWER,KOCHI-682011.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRP.No. 540 of 2018

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and for injunction.

¶21

The suit is filed on the allegation that property of the plaintiffs lie adjoining a public road and that the defendants are attempting to put up hand rails obstructing the access of the plaintiffs

¶22

to the public road. The plaintiffs' contention is that they are entitled for access to the public road at all points their property touches the road. Plaintiffs rely on the judgment of this Court in M.V Joseph v. District Magistrate (1996(2) KLT 490) . The trial court granted an order of injunction. In appeal, the learned Sub Judge interfered with the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the application. It is against the said judgment that this C.R.P is filed.

¶23

CRP.No. 540 of 2018

¶24

¶25

It is not in dispute that pending

¶26

proceedings, the defendants, relying upon a judgment passed by this Court in W.P(C) No.20672 of 2018 and connected matters have already installed the handrails. It is not in dispute that there was no order of injunction in force while the said installation was made by the defendants. Defendants contend that the entire access has not been obstructed and almost 51% is left open. This is disputed by the plaintiffs.

¶27

In view of the above circumstances, I do not

¶28

think that any further directions could be passed in this C.R.P. The suit is very much at large before the

¶29

trial court. Necessarily the suit will have to be tried and disposed of untrammelled by any of the findings entered into by the learned Sub Judge in C.M.A No.58 of 2017. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that in the counter affidavit filed by the defendants in W.P(C)

¶30

CRP.No. 540 of 2018

¶31

¶32

No.26515 of 2017 they had stated that 51% of the total road frontage is being provided for access and that the petitioners would be satisfied if they were also given the same treatment, I do not think that those are matters to be gone into at this stage since according to the defendants the same is already provided.

¶33

In the result, C.R.P is disposed of, directing the court below to try and dispose of O.S No.1097 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible and untrammelled by any of the findings in C.M.A.

¶34

Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge

¶35

vdv

Mobi P.Mathew v. Kochi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mobi P.Mathew v. Kochi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parayathodi Kuhayisha, Vs Parayathodi Kunhali @ Kunhalikutty

Ashok Kumar, Vs Devarajan

Sreekumar, Vs K.K. Viswanathan Nair

Sasidharan Vs Nazeer

Podiyan, Vs Janasakthi Educational Cultural and Charitable Trust

Boby Jose, Vs Jose Thomas