IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6868 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2009 IN IA.1218/2008 IN OS.5/2007 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN I.A.1218/2008 IN O.S.5/2007: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.C. PANKAJAKSHA PANICKER, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, AGED 70 YEARS, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT VENUS HOUSE, NO.M-147, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, ALUVA, KALAMASSERI, KOCHI. PIN 682 033 I.A 1218/2008 IN OS 5/2007. BY ADV. MR.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1-17 IN I.A.1218/2008 IN O.S.5/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.C. MALATHY AMMA, D/O.NARAYANA KURUP, KUNHI PARAMBATH HOUSE, AZHIYOU AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. LEENA, D/O.NANU PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS 3. REETHA, D/O.NANU PANICKER, AGED 43 YEARS 4. BEENA, D/O.NANU PANICKER,AGED 42 YEARS. 5. JAYARAJ, S/O.NANU PANICKER (LATE) 6. BALAGOPALAN, S/O.NANU PANICKER, AGED 39 YEARS. 7. POOKUNNATH KUNIYIL RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 52 YEARS, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT 'LAKSHMI'. 8. P. PREETHA, D/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'APARANA' MAHE AMSOM, PALLOOR DESOM, MAHE TALUK. 9. MEERA, D/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 46 YEARS. WP(C).No. 6868 of 2009(O) 10. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 42 YEARS. 11. RYNA, D/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 40 YEARS. 12. SHEEBA, D/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, AGED 37 YEARS. 13. T.C. MADAHVA PANICKER, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, AGED 75 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, T.B. ROAD, PALLIKKUNNU, KASARGOD. 14. SUJATHA, D/O.T.C. BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, AGED 46 YEARS, TEACHER. 15. SAVITHA, D/O.T.C.BALKRISHNA PANICKER, AGED 44 YEARS, BANK EMPLOYEE. 16. SUNITHA, D/O.T.C.BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, AGED 41, HOUSE WIFE. 17. SANTHOSH, S/O.T.C.BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, AGED 39 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.T.C.IX-71, GOLF LINK ROAD, POST. JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). (RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, MAHE AMSOM, PALLOOR DESOM, MAHE TALUK). (RESPONDENTS 14 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT KARTHIADATH HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY (PO), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.) R13 TO R17 BY ADV. MR.K.RAKESH ROSHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.6868 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside Ext.P5 common order dated 3.2.2009 in I.A.No.93/2007 and I.A.No.1218/2008 in O.S.No.5/2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vadakara, to the extent of the dismissal of I.A.No.1218/2008. ii. to make such other writ or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.5/2007 on the file of the Sub Judge, Vatakara. He had moved an application as I.A.No.1218/2008 in the above suit seeking permission to construct revetment along the boundaries of his property. The application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge and WPC.6868/09 2 questioning the correctness of that order, he has filed the above writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for respondents 14 to 17. Though notice was served on the other respondents, none of them has turned up. The relief claimed in the petition is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents 14 t0 17. From the submissions made and also perusing the order impugned in the writ petition, Ext.P5, it is seen that the petitioner/1st defendant put up constructions in his property after giving an undertaking to the court that he will not construct any revetment along the boundaries of his property. After completing the construction, he has approached the court for putting up the revetments and the learned Sub Judge, after appreciating the facts and circumstances involved, was not inclined to allow the request. Ext.P5 order was passed dismissing the permission sought for. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits WPC.6868/09 3 of the case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits before me that the suit itself is not maintainable which of course is a matter to be decided by the learned Sub Judge in the trial of the suit and not by this Court in the present writ petition. An alternative plea was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for permission to put up a fencing along the boundaries of his property. The dismissal of this petition will not deny the rights of the petitioner, if any, to approach the court below to seek permission for putting up a fencing. However, it is made clear that I am not expressing any opinion as to whether he is entitled to put up any fencing, if at all permission is sought for doing so. Writ petition is dismissed. The learned Sub Judge shall make every endeavor to give the suit top priority for hearing and to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009