IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10619 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHAJI.K.A., S/O.ANTONY, KALLEKKULATH HOUSE, POONJAR SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN MR.K.JAGADEESH MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MOONILAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MOONILAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. JAMES JOSEPH, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KALATHOOKADAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.GEORGE KUTTY MATHEW MR.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R2 MR.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R2 SMT.GEETHA P.MENON FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.10619/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 16.3.07 IN OS. 54/06 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT PALAI. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 27.9.07 IN WPC. NO.19261/06. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 7.3.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10619/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of a property from its original owner one Jalal. It seems that Jalal then sold the property to the second respondent herein. According to the petitioner, this was done in breach of the agreement for sale which had earlier been executed by the petitioner and Jalal. Petitioner then filed a Suit for specific performance before the Sub Court as O.S.No.54/2006. The said Suit was decreed and the original owner and the subsequent purchaser were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, after receiving the balance sale consideration. It is admitted that Ext.P1 judgment is now challenged in an appeal, R.F.A.357/2007. There is a stay of execution of the decree as well. 2. In the meanwhile, the second respondent put W.P.(C).10619/2008 2 up a building in the property and sought for numbering of the same. This was objected to by the petitioner. Secretary of the Panchayat therefore, proposed to conduct a hearing on Ext.P3 which has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Panchayat and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. I do not find any reason why further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 should be interdicted by this Court. It is upto the Panchayat to number the building which has been constructed. Numbering of the building is to be done with reference to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules governing the same. Pendency of the Civil Suit or an appeal arising therefrom, should normally have no impact, except when there is an allegation that the building has been put up in W.P.(C).10619/2008 3 contravention of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court. Secretary shall proceed to take appropriate steps pursuant to Ext.P2, in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs