IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 RSA.No. 97 of 2010() -------------------- AS.79/2005 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA OS.723/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- THILAKAMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTUMALICKAL HOUSE, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------ ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DIVISION, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE THIRUVALLA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP S. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.97 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in a suit for injunction is the appellant. Both the courts have concurrently held that she is not entitled to the discretionary relief of a decree of injunction applied for. 2. Notice issued by the respondent, a public official of the Public Works Department, imputing unauthorised construction of a building jutting into a public road was the cause of action for instituting the suit for the relief of injunction. Both the courts have negatived the claim of the plaintiff, mainly, for the reason that there was no proper identification of the suit property, is the submission of the counsel to urge for further opportunity to have the identification of the property and, thus, to save the building, which is stated to be under threat of demolition on the dismissal of her suit. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even if the relief canvassed for the identification RSA.NO.97/2010 2 of the property setting aside and remitting the case is found not allowable, then, at least a reservation as to her right to seek appropriate relief in appropriate proceedings may be ordered in disposing of the present appeal. Though the relief canvassed by the counsel may appear to be innocuous, I find that in the second appeal preferred against the concurrent decision rendered by two courts below, it would be out of place for this Court to embark upon areas which it could not in exercise in civil jurisdiction covered by the Code of Civil Procedure. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts below, it is seen, even without impleading the State as a party in the suit, the relief of injunction was claimed against a public official of the Public Works Department in respect of a notice issued by him in discharge of his duty as a public servant. The mandate under Rule 5-A of Order XXVII of the CPC that the State should be a party when a public official is proceeded against itself was sufficient that the plaint filed in the case warranted an outright rejection and not a disposal on merits. Be that as it may, the merit of the case for dismissal of the claim of injunction, that too, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel and RSA.NO.97/2010 3 also the limited scope of Section 100 of the CPC, is uncalled for in the present appeal. So far as the reservation to have the identification of the property, wherein the building had been constructed, or at least to take alternate proceedings over such building, it is open to the appellant to take recourse to whatever remedies available to her under law and no further directions or orders can be issued by this Court. Appeal is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp RSA.NO.97/2010 4