IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 OP.No. 11258 of 2000(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. PADMANABHAN POTTI, "SOWPARNIKA", ELAMKULAM, SREEKARIYAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN VYASAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, NATHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, ULIYAZHAUTHURA SRI. MADHAVA TEMPLE, ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KERALADHITHYAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. P. KESAVAN, CHENCHERIYIL MOOLA, NALANCHIRA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, TDB FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 18584 OF 2000 IN OP 11258 OF 2000 DISMISSED 12.8.2010 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE SD/-P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 14814 OF 1999 DATED 21.1.2000 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 760/99 DATED 10.5.1999 BEFORE THE VCATION JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE I.A. IN OS NO. 192/2000 RELEVANT PORTION. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RDO IN M.C.NO.163 OF 1989 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN IN OS 192/2000 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O. P. No. 11258 of 2000 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Petitioner appears to be aggrieved by Ext.P1 judgment rendered by this Court on 21.1.2000. In that case the finding of a Division Bench of this Court is that some people including the petitioner is trying to encroach upon temple property. Temple earmarked it's boundaries and constructed the compound wall. Petitioner's case is that on account of observations in the judgment, in which he was not a party, the suit filed by him got dismissed. Petitioner it at all aggrieved by Ext.P1 judgment cannot get the judgment reversed or modified by filing another Writ Petition. Since the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and since the compound wall is constructed in 2000 and WPC is also pending for the last 10 years, we close the same leaving freedom to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 judgment in appropriate proceedings. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) kk Judge. 2