Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE1T DAY OF APRIL201411TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7265 of 2014 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.C. THOMAS KALEEKKAPARAMBIL, KADAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. KADAPRA GRAMAPANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAPRA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 630.
2. VINODKUMAR THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KADAPRA P.O., KADAPRA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 630.
3. BHAVANI AMMA THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KADAPRA P.O., KADAPRA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 630. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0104-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7265 of 2014 (G) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED1903.2012 IN WP(C) 5500 OF2012 EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN AS THE RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.820 OF2012 EXHIBIT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED1907.2012 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.820 OF2012 EXHIBIT P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED1702.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED1702.2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
========================== W.P.(C). No.7265 OF2014========================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are neighbours. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 have encroached upon a common pathway vested with the first respondent panchayat and constructed a fence. In respect of the said pathway, when steps were taken by the panchayat to remove the fencing, the third respondent instituted O.S.No.548 of 2012 before the Munsif's Court, Thiruvalla. Admittedly, the said suit is pending. The first respondent is one of the defendants in the said suit. As per Ext.P4, the petitioner requested the first respondent to remove the fencing put up by respondents 2 and 3. As noticed earlier, the third respondent instituted O.S.No.548 of 2012 on being aggrieved by the action taken W.P.(C).7265/14 2 by the first respondent. Essentially, the right of respondents 2 and 3 over the common pathway is a matter to be decided ultimately in the said original suit. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in interfering with this matter and issuing a direction to the first respondent to take action on Ext.P4 treating that respondents 2 and 3 have committed encroachment into the pathway in question. I am of the view that any interference in the matter would adversely affect the prospects of respondents 2 and 3 in the said proceedings. In case the petitioner is having any grievance to be redressed, it will be open to him to get impleaded in the original suit or resort to appropriate civil remedy. Subject to the above observation and without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner in that regard, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ W.P.(C).7265/14 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C).7265/14 4 JUDGMENT
September,2010