Disposed

Ratheeshkumar Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Feb 2020OP(C)/308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In O.P.(C) No.308 of 2020, the High Court of Kerala ordered the Munsiff Court in Alleppey to advance the hearing of an interlocutory application filed by petitioners seeking an injunction against the reduction of their property for road widening. The Court directed the continuation of the existing status quo. No opinion on the merits of the petition was expressed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Munsiff to advance the posting of the interlocutory application to a near date and pass appropriate orders; status quo continued.

Ratheeshkumar Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020/18TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

O.P.(C) No.308 OF 2020

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.1/2020 IN O.S.No.66/2020 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALLEPPEY)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 RATHEESHKUMAR RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, PULLIPADATHU, NEERKUNNAM MURI, AMBALAPUZHA NORTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, R. PREMKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, PULLIPADATHU, NEERKUNNAM MURI, AMBALAPUZHA NORTH VILLAGE.

¶9

2 SASIKALA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.PREMKUMAR, PULLIPADATHU, NEERKUNNAM MURI, AMBALAPUZHA NORTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM 695 036.

¶13

2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, COLLECTORATE P.O., ALLEPPEY 688 001.

¶14

3 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, MUSARI BUNGALOW, KARUMADY, AMBALAPUZHA 688 561.

¶15

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA NORTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT 688 561.

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O.P.(C) No.308 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for prohibitory injunction. The apprehension

¶21

of the plaintiffs is that, the respondents/defendants are proposing to widen the adjoining road by reducing a portion of plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 which belong to the plaintiffs, without resorting to the process of law. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs/petitioners moved an application for interim injunction on similar lines as I.A.No.1/2020. The petitioners have approached this court with the grievance that, so far no orders have been passed on the interlocutory application and they apprehend that their properties will be reduced for widening the way.

¶22

On 3.2.2020, this court had directed

¶23

status quo to be maintained regarding the

¶24

O.P.(C) No.308 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

property of the petitioners. The interlocutory application is stated to be presently posted to 25.3.2020 before the court below.

¶27

In view of the facts as noticed above, I dispose of this original petition directing the learned Munsiff to advance the posting of the interlocutory application to a near date with notice to both sides, consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The learned Munsiff could pass even interim orders pending final disposal of the I.A. Till such order is passed, the interim order of status quo as directed by this court shall continue. However, I make it clear that, I have not expressed anything on the merits of the petition.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶30

¶31

O.P.(C) No.308 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED NO.25/2017 DATED 4/1/2017 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19/6/2019 WITH RESPECT TO EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1704/2011 DATED 27/6/2011. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/1/2020 WITH RESPECT TO EXT.P3. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4/11/2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/11/2019 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 66/2020 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALLEPPEY. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1/20202 IN O.S. NO.66/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, ALLEPPEY.

Ratheeshkumar Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheeshkumar Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

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

Thomas P.P Vs Joy Thomas

V.v.Ponnappan Vs M.K.Purushan

Shaji, Vs Sunny Jacob

T.M.George Vs T.M.Mathew

Sunitha Reghu Vs Binni Varghese

T.M.George Vs T.M.Mathew