IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8728 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.267/2006 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNITHA TALIAT,AGED 45 YEARS, @ SUNITHA MOHAN,W/O.MOHAN,CHERRY FARM ASHRAM ERANGAL,MADHMARY ROAD,MUMBAI-400 061. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) SRI.P.R.MILTON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SMT:GEEJA @ REMA,STAFF,CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT:CHANDRIKA,COUNSELOR,MUTTADA WARD NO:19,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION. MR.P K MANOJ KUMAR , SC FOR TVM CORPN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8728 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 16th March 2010 Judgment The short prayer made in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for a direction to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram to issue a certified copy of the Judgment dated 27.02.2010 in OS No.267/06 to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit as OS No.267/06 in respect of Plaint A schedule property having an extent of 26 cents. Plaint B schedule is the granite boundary wall, which separates A schedule and C schedule properties. The petitioner submits that she is residing in Mumbai and there is no one to look after the Plaint A schedule property. According to her, taking advantage of the situation, the 2nd respondent, who is a staff of the Corporation and the 3rd respondent, who is the Ward Counselor, influenced the Corporation and made an WPC 8728/10 2 opening on the southern side of the plaint A schedule property by demolishing plaint B schedule wall. In the above circumstances, the suit was laid by the petitioner. The Court below initially granted interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner by the order in IA No.2091/06. Finally, the suit was tried and it was dismissed on 27.02.2010. The petitioner claims that on 27.02.2010 itself, she filed a copy application along with IA No.1362/10, seeking to prevent the respondents from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property. Copy of the said IA is produced as Ext.P3. Ext.P3 was moved on 06.03.2010. But, that too has not been disposed of by the Court below. The petitioner submits, the non-furnishing of the copy of the Judgment passed by the Court below causes considerable injury to her. She apprehends that respondents 2 and 3 may again trespass into the Plaint A schedule property and so, she wants to take further steps in the matter. Therefore, she prays for a direction to the Court below to issue a certified copy of the Judgment WPC 8728/10 3 dt.27.2.2010 in O S No.267/06. 3. The detailed facts are narrated by the petitioner in the Writ Petition and it is unnecessary to reiterate the same in this Judgment. The apprehension of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 may trespass into her property, unless she is able to take further steps. For the said purpose, she has to get a copy of the Judgment passed by the Court below, dismissing the suit filed by her. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram to issue a certified copy of the Judgment dt.27.02.2010 in OS No.267/06 to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. A copy of this Judgment shall be sent directly to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for compliance. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 8728/10 4 WPC 8728/10 5