IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 630 of 2009() --------------------- CMA.74/2009 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.478/2009 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------- BIJU THOMAS, MAVILETHU,25/126 C GROUND FLOOR, MAM RESIDENCE, JADE GARDENS TEMPLE ROAD, KUNAMTHAI, EDAPPALLI, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------- 1. ADUL SHUKUR, CHULLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE EDAVANAKKADU PO, KOCHI, NOW RESIDING AT MAM RESIDENCE, JADE GARDENS, AMBALAM ROAD, KOONATHAI EDAPPALLI. 2. RELIANCE INFRATGEL LTD S.A.ROAD, KOCHI 682 016. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.630 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Concurrent finding entered by two courts below that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of interim injunction applied for to restrain the defendants from completing the construction of a mobile tower on the roof of a multi storied building and activating that tower is challenged in the revision. Petitioner claims to be the owner of an apartment in that multi storied building. He has a case that as a co-owner of the building, his right of enjoyment over the roof of the building is seriously prejudiced by the putting up of the mobile tower in that building. He has a further case that the radiation, which is likely to be caused by the operation of the tower would cause irreparable injury to him as an occupant and also a co-owner of an apartment in the multi storied building. Both the courts below have not considered his right as a co-owner to the building in examining the merits of his interlocutory application seeking the discretionary relief, is CRP.630/09 2 the grievance espoused by the learned counsel for challenging the orders passed by those courts submitting that exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court is called for in the facts of the case. 2. After perusing the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff Court and also the learned District Judge in the appeal preferred against the order of the learned Munsiff, I find both the courts have examined the question whether the petitioner/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of discretionary relief. On the materials placed and hearing the counsel on both sides, the two courts below have come to the conclusion that at this stage, balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and any order of interim injunction would cause them irreparable injury. The construction of the mobile tower in the roof of the building, it has been noticed, has reached an advanced stage and any order by the court at this stage, it has been found, was not advisable. Considering the facts and circumstances presented, I find there is no jurisdictional infirmity or impropriety in the views formed by the courts below to CRP.630/09 3 conclude that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief canvassed for interim injunction. Needless to point out, injunction is an equitable relief. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, without adjudication, disputed facts have to be looked into by the court when a party seeks such an order from the court. Where two courts have concurrently held that on the facts presented, at this stage, where the construction of a mobile tower has reached an advanced stage, it is inequitable to grant the relief, I find no scope for interference. There will be a direction to the court below to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of completion of the pretrial steps in the suit. Needless to point out, the court shall dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in its order or the judgment passed by the learned District Judge in appeal. Revision is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp