IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 5793 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.K.RAJA,S/O.K.VIJAYAN VIJALAYAM, EVOOR NORTH,CHEPPAD VILLAGE KARHTIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, HARIPAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK LEGAL SERVICE, OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1,HARIPAD,ALAPPUZHA DT. 2. KRISHNAKUMARI M.NADESAN KANDATHIL VEEDU, EVOOR VADAKKU MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, CHEPPAD P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DT. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HARIPAD DIVISION. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA, ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5793/2008-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 21/08/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 21/08/07 BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 264/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). 34767/07. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION IN PLP. NO. 176/2007 BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION IN PLP. NO. 176/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO. 706/06 DTD. 21/08/2006 OF CHEPPAD SUB REGISTRY. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1302/06 DTD. 21/08/2006 OF CHEPPAD SUB REGISTRY. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 492/07 DTD. 28/03/2007 OF CHEPPAD SUB REGISTRY. EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1379/07 DTD. 22/09/2007 OF THE CHEPPAD SUB REGISTRY. EXT.R2.E: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/10/2007 ISSUED FROM THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER AUTHORITY, HARIPAD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2.F: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/12/2007 IN I.A. 1783/2007 IN O.S. 264/2007. EXT.R2.G: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.R2.H: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN CMA. NO. 72/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKARA. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 5793 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 27, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P5, a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent and numbered as PLP 176/2007. 2. Since the proceedings before the 1st respondent are governed by consensus between the parties, unless the petitioner agrees, no adverse order can be passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, there is no reason for the petitioner to be aggrieved by the pendency of Ext.P5 before the 1st respondent. 3. The further prayer sought for is that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to proceed with Ext.P5. If, according to the petitioner, the 1st respondent lacks jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P5 complaint, it is for the petitioner to appraise the 1st respondent this jurisdictional defect and seek appropriate orders. 4. In so far as the claim of the 2nd respondent for water connection to his building is concerned, I notice that the matter, as at present, is governed by Ext.R2(f) order of the civil court wherein the petitioner herein, being the defendant, is restrained by an order WP(C) 5793/08 Page numbers of temporary injunction from obstructing the taking of water connection to the house situated in the A schedule to the plaint, which is the residential building of the 2nd respondent. Though it is on record that against Ext.R2(f), petitioner has filed a C.M.Appeal before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara, it is the common case of the parties that there is no order staying the operation of Ext.R2(f) order. If that be so, the 2nd respondent is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the order so long as it stands as such. 5. Thus, in view of Ext.R2(f) order, I direct that it will be open to the Water Authority to consider the application made by the 2nd respondent on merits without insisting on the consent of the petitioner herein. It is clarified that in case Ext.R2(f) order is upset by the Appellate Court or at the stage of final disposal of the suit, it will be open to the petitioner to seek necessary modification at the hands of the Water Authority itself. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-