Disposed¶53

Vellarada Grama Panchayath, v. Thapasi

Kerala HC18 Mar 2025OP(C)/1954/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OP(C) 1954/2021 (2025:KER:22891), Vellarada Grama Panchayath v. Thapasi, decided 18.03.2025 by Basant Balaji J. Keywords: perpetual injunction suit OS No.678/2014; interim injunction IA No.3514/2014; restoration of status quo ante under Section 151 CPC; order dated 16.08.2019 in IA No.4225/2016 based on Advocate Commissioner reports Ext.C1/C2; execution application IA No.5945/2019 with Amin deputed; review petition IA No.03/2021; condonation of delay of 122 days IA No.04/2021; police protection application; Ombudsman CP No.888/2016 undertaking; direction to dispose of pending IAs within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Trial Court (II Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara) to take up Exts.P5 and P6 and dispose of them within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. ¶53

Vellarada Grama Panchayath, Vs Thapasi — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1954 OF 2021

¶6

OS NO.678 OF 2014 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIL KUMAR R.S., VELLARADA, PANACHAMOOD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV J.S.AJITHKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THAPASI,

¶12

S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 63, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHANVEEDU, EDAKKODE, CHILAMBARA DESOM, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶13

BY ADVS. V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) NEERAJ NARAYAN V.JAYA RAGI R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021

¶16

-2- 2025:KER:22891

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Dated this the 18th day of March, 2025)

¶19

The petitioner/defendant is a Grama Panchayat,

¶20

represented by its Secretary. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit as OS No.678 of 2014 for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from tarring any portion of the plaint schedule property and from altering the physical status of the plaint schedule property in any manner. In the suit, IA No.4225 of 2016 is filed for restoring the status quo ante under Section 151 CPC, as there was an IA for interim injunction as IA No. 3514 of 2014; on 11.07.204, an interim injunction was passed against the defendant from tarring any portion of the plaint schedule property or altering the physical status until final disposal of the suit or until further order. On 15.06.2015, the respondent has filed an application for police protection, where an objection was

¶21

OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021

¶22

-3- 2025:KER:22891

¶23

filed by the petitioner contending that they do not intend to

¶24

carryout the alleged work of tarring or construction of culvert through the disputed property. The matter was challenged before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institution as CP No.888/2016, where the petitioner personally appeared and made an undertaking

¶25

that they will not construct any road.

¶26

The respondent contends that violating the order of injunction passed in IA No.3514 of 2014, the concretion was done on the road and converted into a motorable road. Therefore, the respondent filed IA No.4225 of 2016 and as

¶27

per order dated 16.08.2019, allowed the respondent to restore status quo ante as on 30.06.2014 noted by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1, C1(a) by removing the constructions noted in Ext.C2(a).

¶28

In order to execute the same, another IA was

¶29

OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021

¶30

-4- 2025:KER:22891

¶31

filed as IA No.5945/2019 under Section 151 CPC, seeking a court officer for executing the order dated 16.08.2019 in IA No.4225/2016, which was allowed by the order dated 07.09.2021 and an Amin was deputed for implementing the order. The petitioner thereafter filed IA No.03/2021 (Ext.P5) to review the order in IA No.4225/2016, along with a petition to condone the delay of 122 days as IA No.04/2021

¶32

(Ext.P6).

¶33

The request of the petitioner is for a direction to

¶34

the II Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, to pass

¶35

orders in IA No.03/2021 and IA No.04/2021, before

¶36

execution of orders in Exts.P3 and P4, including the question of maintainability of the suit.

¶37

This Court, while admitting the case on 29.10.2021, had passed an order of staying the operation of

¶38

Exts.P3 and P4, for two weeks.

¶39

OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021

¶40

-5- 2025:KER:22891

¶41

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶42

order passed in E xt.P3 is sou ght to be reviewed by Ext.P5 and till such time, Ext.P3 is to be kept in abeyance.

¶43

The counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the same and submits that when an injunction order was passed by the competent court, and the petitioner has disobeyed the same and constructed the road, Ext.P3 cannot be kept in abeyance. The court having gone through Exts.C1 and C2, came to a definite conclusion that the road was concreted after the injunction order is passed, and

¶44

thereby the status quo ante was directed to be restored.

¶45

The counsel for the respondent further pointed out that in Ext.P5 itself in paragraphs 5 and 6, the petitioner stated that they do not have any connection with

¶46

the road in question, and no money is spent for tarring or concreting the road. In such circumstances, the petitioner is

¶47

OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021

¶48

-6- 2025:KER:22891

¶49

not an aggrieved person and the review is only to delay the

¶50

execution of Ext.P3 order.

¶51

Taking into consideration that Exts.P5 and P6 applications are pending before the court from 2021

¶52

onwards, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to take up Exts.P5 and P6 and dispose of the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

The original petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

OP(C) NO.1954 OF 2021

-7- 2025:KER:22891

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P2	COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONER DATED 18/11/2016 IN OA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO. 678/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P3	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2019 IN IA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO.678/2016 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P4	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/09/2021 IN IA NO. 5945/2019 IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P5	COPY OF IA NO.03/2021 IN IA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P6	COPY OF IA NO.04/2021 IN IA NO.4225/2016 IN OS NO.678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P7	COPY OF IA NO. 02/202 IN IA NO. 4225/2016 IN OS NO. 678/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

Vellarada Grama Panchayath, v. Thapasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellarada Grama Panchayath, v. Thapasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshna Mariam Eapen Vs Jiffin Sam

Dr.Lakshmi Sobhan Vs Jayaprakash

Sunila James Vs the Special Tahsildar

Y. Shajahan Vs Shanavas

Mahima M.B Vs Shiju

Shiju Sreenivasan Vs Mahima A.B