IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18677 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 1743/2008 IN OS.273/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI ................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL NAZAR ALIAS BAPPU, E.K.BHAVANAM, P.O.PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PUZHAKKAL BASHEER, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, 'HAPPY TEXTILES', POST PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521. 2. KOTTEKKODAN ABU, S/O.KUNJAYAMU, KOTTEKKADAN VEEDU, TAMPAN ANGADI, P.O.VELUVANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KOTTEKKODAN NAZAR, S/O.SAIDALI, KOTTEKADAN VEEDU, TAMPAN ANGADI, P.O.VLELUVANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. PALOOR MUHAMMED HANEEFA, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PALOOKKARAN ABDULSALAM, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, VETTATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18677 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the first defendant in O.S 273/2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court Manjeri. First respondent in the petition is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 4 co-defendants with the petitioner in the suit. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants, petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4, the landlords from evicting the plaintiff forcibly from the building. Tenancy arrangement over the building under the above land lords is admitted by the plaintiff. With the suit he had moved for an interim injunction seeking an identical relief till its disposal and that was ordered. Pursuant thereto the defendants/land W.P.(C).No.18677 OF 2009 2 lords received a notice from the Tahsildar directing them to remove some unauthorized constructions added to the building encroaching upon the road purampoke. Such unauthorized construction was made by the tenant and not by the landlords and so much so he must be directed to remove such constructions was the case pleaded by the land lords filing a petition before the court in the above suit. That petition after hearing both sides was dismissed. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order one among the landlords, first defendant in the suit, has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. From the facts and circumstances presented and hearing the counsel for the petitioner I find W.P.(C).No.18677 OF 2009 3 no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with. It is noticed that the 5th respondent, Tahsildar was unnecessarily made one among the respondents in the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendants have already filed a written statement in the suit and no counterclaim with respect to the relief claimed in the petition on the order which is impugned in the petition was raised in the written statement. The only apprehension raised by the counsel is that Ext.P5 order would cause impediment to the 5th respondent in taking appropriate action as warranted and in accordance with law for the removal of alleged encroachment made over the purampoke by putting additional constructions to the building. Tahsildar who issued Ext.P1 is not a party to the suit and as such Ext.P5 order passed by the court on the application moved by the defendants/land W.P.(C).No.18677 OF 2009 4 lords need not cause impediment to the Tahsildar in taking action as provided by law. Further more Ext.P5 order passed by the court in the present suit filed by the first respondent seeking a decree of forcible eviction, whatever be the adverse observations made by the court, if at all any such observation is found prejudicial to the defendants/landlords will not disentitle them also from seeking appropriate relief by taking appropriate steps as provided by law. 3. Subject to the above observations the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv