IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 RSA.No. 735 of 2003() --------------------- AS.149/1994 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.642/1992 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------- H. ISMAIL, KULANGARA VILAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.41/2163, KALIPPANKULAM, MANACAD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN ADV. SMT. RAKHEE V.S. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------ CITY CORPORATION TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, STANDING COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * S.A. NO. 735 of 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 18-11-2008 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S. No. 642 of 1992 on the file of the Ist Addl. Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The said suit was for injunction restraining the City Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and its officers from taking steps to forcibly effect the plaintiff from the plaint schedule bunk where he was allegedly continuing the business carried on by one Raghavan whose rights were allegedly purchased by him. The courts below have concurrently found that the document produced by the appellant will only show that he was conducting a business in the plaint schedule bunk but those documents did not show that either the appellant or the said Raghavan was granted license by the defendant Corporation and that the occupation of the appellant at a public place was unauthorised and the Corporation had every right to remove his unauathorised occupation. The plaintiff was, accordingly, denied the discretionary relief of injunction by the courts S.A. NO. 735 of 2003 -:2:- below.No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The questions formulated in this memoradum of appeal do not arise for consideration in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * S.A. NO. 735 of 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 18-11-2008 JUDGMENT