IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3393 of 2011(O) ------------------------- IA NO.1497/2011 IN OS.198/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- SAKEENA, W/O.MAYANVEETTIL ABDUL KHADER, PURATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, P.O.PADINJARAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY SECRETARY, VYDYUDI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ALATHIYOOR 675051. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VETTOM- 675051. 4. BEEVATHU W/O.KOCHIKKAPARAMBIL MOHAMMED, PURTHOOR AMSOM DESOM, POST PADINJARAKKARA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 675015. 5. MAYANVEETTIL ABDUL KHADER S/O.BAVA, PURATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, P.O.PADINJARAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-675015. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.3393/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.198/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 26.7.2011 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.897/2000 OF SRO, KODAKKAL DATED 28.3.2000 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.7.2011 FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB SECTION TIRUR EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1497/2011 IN OS 198/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 26.7.2011 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OFTHE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS 198/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 4.8.2011 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3393 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of 2011 of the court of learned Munsiff, Tirur. That is a suit for a prohibitory injunction restraining respondents 1 to 4 from installing transformer in front of property of petitioner and for mandatory injunction to direct respondents 1 to 3 remove the concrete posts installed. Petitioner filed Ext.P4, I.A.No.1497 of 2011 for an order temporary injunction against installation of the transformer. That application has not so far been disposed of. The apprehension of petitioner is that in the meantime, taking advantage of the fact that Ext.P4, application has not been disposed of respondents might instal the transformer. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn my attention to Ext.P5, sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the transformer is being installed away from the house of petitioner and on the side of the public road, beyond tarred portion which will not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.27057 of 2011 in this Court seeking very same relief where petitioner was relegated to the civil court and seek appropriate reliefs. OP(C)No.3393/2011 2 3. Having heard learned counsel on both sides I find no reason why I should interfere in the matter at this stage. But I direct the learned Munsiff, Chittur to expedite disposal of the application for injunction, on its merit giving it top priority. Original Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks