IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.A.No. 875 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.8738/2008 DATED 17/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:- ---------------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR P.S., 32/966, PALLICHAMBAYIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. APPLE A DAY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, APPLE TOWER, PALARIVATTOM-EDAPPALLY BYE PASS ROAD, EDAPPLLY P.O., KOCHI-682 024, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY K.A.SAJU, MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY. R1 BY ADV.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.875 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8738/2008 dated 17th March, 2008. (2). The appellant is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. (3). The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is as under: “Advocate Mr.S.Ramesh Babu enteres appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Advocate Mr.K.P.Satheesan enters appearance for respondents 3 to 7. Counter affidavit, if any, will be filed within three weeks. In the meanwhile Ext.P2 stop memo is stayed and the petitioner is permitted to commence the work on condition that they shall not violate the building permit or the approved plan in respect of which Exts.P1 and P4 are issued, while carrying out the construction. The remedy for respondents 3 to 7 is to approach a competent civil court in the event of any genuine grievance during construction is voiced.” (3). In our opinion, if for any reason the appellant/3rd respondent is aggrieved by that order, he can definitely make appropriate application before the very same learned Single Judge for W.A.No.875/2008 -2- modification/vacating the interim order. Without doing so, the appellant/3rd respondent has rushed to this Court. In our opinion, the appeal filed by the appellant/3rd respondent is premature. Therefore, we decline to entertain the same. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant/3rd respondent, if he so desires, to make appropriate application for modification/vacating the interim order before the learned Single Judge. (4). All the contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS