IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34357 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------------- CMA.15/2007 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA OS.280/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER: P.G.GEEVARGHESE, ADVOCATE, AGED 58, S/O.GEE VARGHESE, LATHARA PUTHEN PARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMPURAM P.O., PADINJAREKKARA MURI, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: 1. P.S.BABU, THURUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMPURAM P.O., PADINJAREKKARA MURI, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE. 2. REMA BABU OF DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34357 of 2008 M -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.280/07 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted the said suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from dismantling or destroying the Cable T.V. line drawn through Item No.2 pathway and sought for an interim order of injunction by filing I.A.No.1294/07. The trial court considered the said application on merits and passed Exhibit P1 order restraining the petitioner from dismantling or destroying the Cable T.V. line drawn through Item No.2 pathway till the disposal of the suit. Petitioner assailed the said order filing C.M.A.No.15/07 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla and the appellate court dismissed the appeal, but without costs. It is assailing Exhibits P1 and P2 concurrent orders of the courts below that this writ petition is filed by the defendant. WPC 34357/08 2 2. Exhibit P3 is the sale deed executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs in relation to 12 cents of property, which lies adjacent to the property of the defendant. In Exhibit P3, petitioner/defendant has provided facilities to the respondents/plaintiffs to have access to the said property sold to them through his private pathway having a width of 12 feet for the purpose of vehicular traffic and for drawing electric line, water line, telephone line, etc. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that no permission had been granted to draw cable for connection being given to the television and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to have that facility. It is not stated in Exhibit P3 that no cable line can be drawn for giving connection to the television. By the grant made in Exhibit P3, it is clear that what was intended to be given to the respondents/plaintiffs is facility to enjoy the WPC 34357/08 3 property assigned, constructing building and availing all modern facilities. The present stand taken by the petitioner/defendant can only be viewed as a stand taken on account of jealousy to harass the respondents/plaintiffs and the stand taken by him is ill-conceived and with mala fides. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, hence, dismissed. 21st November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv