IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6855 of 2009(O) CMA.73/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM I.A.NO.67/2007 IN OS.8/2007 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JOHNY P.GEORGE, S/O.P.S.GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS, PUNNAKUDIYIL VEEDU, SHAW WALLACE LANE, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CISSAMMA P.GEORGE, W/O.JOHNY P.GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, PUNNAKUDIYIL VEEDU, SHAW WALLACE LANE, NALANCHIRA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VIDHYADHARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, TC 3/22(1), RAMANKARI, PARUTHUPPARA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 6855 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.8 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenge the judgment in C.M.A.No.73 of 2007, District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction restraining the first defendant from letting polluted greasy waste water from plaint 'C' schedule property to plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. There is also a prayer for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from removing the water pipeline which passes through plaint 'D' schedule property. The prayer for mandatory injunction was also made by the plaintiff. 2. I.A.No.67 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff for a temporary injunction. The trial court, by Ext.P3 order dated 8.2.2007, dismissed the application. The plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.73 of 2007. The lower appellate court, after considering the pleadings and documentary evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to get temporary injunction. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed. W.P.(C) NO.6855 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 3. The plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties belong to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of plaint 'C', 'D' and 'E' schedule properties. Defendants 1 and 2 conduct a sale cum service station of two wheelers in plaint 'C' schedule property. A water pipeline passes through the plaint 'D' schedule property leading to the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. 4. A Commissioner was appointed in the case. The Commissioner stated in the report that waste water was seen in the property of the plaintiff and that waste water comes from plaint 'C' schedule property. The report also shows that waste water gets stagnated near the well in the property belonging to the plaintiff. The Commissioner also noted that waste water and greasy water escape from the property of the defendants through the compound wall and the same reaches the plaint 'B' schedule property. Taking into account these facts and other relevant facts, the court below came to the conclusion that the trial court was not justified in refusing temporary injunction. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed and defendants 1 and 2 were restrained from draining waste/greasy water from their service station functioning in plaint 'C' schedule property to plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties in such a way as to cause nuisance to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 were directed to make their own arrangements to collect the waste water in their property itself without W.P.(C) NO.6855 OF 2009 :: 3 :: draining the same to plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Defendants 1 and 2 were also restrained from removing water pipeline passing through plaint 'D' schedule property leading to the plaintiff's property. The court below has considered the pleadings and the documentary evidence in the correct perspective. All the contentions raised by the parties were taken note of by the court below. I am of the view that the court below was right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get temporary injunction. 5. No interference in the Writ Petition is called for. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the findings and observations in the order of the trial court and the judgment of the lower appellate court are intended only for the purpose of disposing of the interlocutory applications and the trial court shall not take into account those observations at the time of final disposal of the suit. The suit shall be disposed of by the trial court untrammelled by those observations and findings. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/