Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C. VIJAYAMOHANAN NAIR versus KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C. VIJAYAMOHANAN NAIR v. KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH - WP(C) No. 24745 of 2005(U) [2007] RD-KL 10852 (21 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24745 of 2005(U)

1. C. VIJAYAMOHANAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent

2. P. HARIDAS,

3. REGHUNATHAN NAIR,

4. SASIDHARAN PILLAI,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.JOHN

For Respondent :SRI.C.J.JOY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :21/06/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No. 24745 OF 2005 U

Dated this the 21st June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the Munsiff, Kottarakkara. Ext.P1 is an order passed in the amendment application I.A.3209/04 wherein the plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint by incorporating a prayer that the building permit granted in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is null and void. The suit filed on 3.3.2001 is for a declaration that it is a public path way. In order to succeed the plaintiff has to establish that it is a public path way and nothing else. So, the incorporation of another prayer to set aside the building permit as null and void need not have been tacked on with the prayer in the present plaint. There may be provisions under the Panchayat Act to challenge a permit given to a person when somebody else is aggrieved by the non-statutory performance of the Panchayat. Further, by amending the plaint in the way in which it is sought, it will change the character of the suit itself and therefore the court below was right in refusing to entertain the amendment application. As far as Ext.P2 is concerned, it is only another amendment application incorporating the same relief and therefore the filing of second application WPC 24745/05 2 is barred by the principle of res judicata because even in pending proceedings the orders can operate as res judicata. Therefore, the dismissal of Ext.P2 also is in order. Therefore the writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed. If the plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision of the Panchayat in granting a permit it is for him to pursue his remedy as per the statute or by a separate proceedings, if permissible by law. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.