IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22444 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.JOSEPH, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, AGED 59 YEARS, CHEETHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANALLOR VILLAGE, VADUTHALA DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSEPH STANLY S/O.P.P.RAPHEL, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALAKKAPPILLIL (H), VADUTHALA, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3. ALPHONSA JOSEPH W/O.JOSEPH STANLY, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALAKKAPPILLIL (H), VADUTHALA, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 4. BINDU VINOD, W/O.VINOD, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUSUTHARA PARAMBU, VADUTHALA, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. VISALAM RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUSUTHARA PARAMBU, VADUTHALA, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SC M K CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 22444 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT A piece of land belonging to the Government is the subject matter of this litigation. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title to that piece of land on the ground that he has perfected title by adverse possession. The private respondents raised the plea that they have an easement of way over that. The petitioner's suit stands dismissed. It is stated that by his learned counsel that the plea of the private respondents, of easement, is left unconsidered by the civil court. 2. This writ petition is filed on the basis of an anxiety that the Corporation would permit the private respondents to carve out a way as contended by them, even before the petitioner would file his first appeal against the decree of the court of first instance and make an effort to obtain interlocutory orders from the appellate court. I am not impressed. Principles of lis pendens and availability of opportunity to file appeal without any delay necessarily provides sufficient care against any injury that the Wpc 22444/2009 2 petitioner apprehends. The issues between the parties are primarily relatable to rights gaining attention of the civil court. Obviously therefore, I do not find any ground to issue any direction as sought for. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/7/8