Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MRS.ROSILY JOY, 45 YEARS versus KUMBALANGI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MRS.ROSILY JOY, 45 YEARS v. KUMBALANGI GRAMA PANCHAYATH - WP(C) No. 23063 of 2004(U) [2007] RD-KL 12039 (4 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23063 of 2004(U)

1. MRS.ROSILY JOY, 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. JOSEPH ROCK, AGED 40 YEARS,

3. B.P.JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS,

4. PETER CELESTINE, AGED 45 YEARS,

5. TIMMY CELESTINE, AGED 43 YEARS,

6. DOMINIC CELESTINE, AGED 40 YEARS,

7. JEO CELESTINE, AGED 38 YEARS,

8. MRS.SIMMY CELESTINE, AGED 35 YEARS,

9. PATRIK XAVIER, C/O. B.P.JOLLY,

10. PETER PINTOO (MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS,

11. B.J.FRANCO S/O. B.M.JOSEPH,

12. JOSEPH FRANCO S/O. B.J.FRANCO,

13. ALEX FRANCO S/O. B.J.FRANCO,

14. B.J.MATHEW S/O. B.M.JOSEPH,

15. JOSEPH MATHEW S/O. B.J.MATHEW,

16. THOMAS MATHEW S/O. MATHEW,

17. MANU MATHEW S/O. B.J.MATHEW,

18. EDWARD MATHEW S/O. B.J.MATHEW,

19. B.J.ANTONY S/O. B.M.JOSEPH

20. JOSEPH ANTONY, S/O. B.J.ANTONY,

21. APPU VIRGIL ANTONY (MINOR),

22. B.M.EDWARD, AGED 84 YEARS,

23. B.MANICK PRASAD, AGED 58 YEARS,

24. JOSEPH EDWARD, AGED 49 YEARS,

25. EVEREST EDWARD, AGED 47 YEARS

26. TOMY EDWARD, AGED 44 YEARS,

27. MRS.DEEPA JOHN, W/O. JOHN LEEN,

Vs

1. KUMBALANGI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent

2. LINDA DOMINIC C/O. B.P.JOSEPH,

3. MOHAN GEORGE C/O. JOSEPH ROCK,

For Petitioner :SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR

For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHETTIAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :04/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.23063 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 4th July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Ext.P6 order of the learned Subordinate Judge modifying Ext.P3 order allowing a C.M.Appeal filed by the respondents is under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Extensive arguments were addressed before me by Mr.B.N.Shiva Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Mohan, counsel for the 1st respondent-Panchayat. I was taken through the various exhibits placed on record and particularly Ext.A15 interim order which was passed by this court in O.P.No.26971 of 2002 filed by the petitioners.

3. Strenuous and fervent submissions of Mr.Shiva Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners notwithstanding, I am not inclined to hold that Ext.P6 is vitiated to the extent of warranting interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution which is expected to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. Neverthless noticing some merit in his submission that the sum of Rs.80,000/- was fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge as payable to the respondent for securing fishing rights every year without any cogent materials and that Ext.A15 was only an interim W.P.C.No.23063/04 - 2 - order which could not have been relied on for the purpose of fastening heavy peculiar liability on the petitioners, I virtually reduced the amount to Rs.60,000/- while passing interim order in this Writ Petition on 4.4.2007. Under the above circumstances, repelling the challenge against Ext.P6, the Writ Petition will stand disposed of by issuing the following directions: Till lsuch time as suit O.S.No.470/03 is disposed of, the plaintiff will be an obligation to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- as against the sum of Rs.80,000/- directed under Ext.P6. The learned Munsiff will issue appropriate directions to the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor who have been appointed for conducting measurement of the properties and thereby ensure that the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor submits their report and plan at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of the judgment. Once the Commissioner's report and the Surveyor's plan are received as directed, the learned Munsiff will special list the suit for trial in the earliest available special list and ensure that the suit itself is disposed of at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of the report and plan. Till such time as the suit is disposed of, the interim arrangement stipulated in Ext.P6 as modified by this W.P.C.No.23063/04 - 3 - judgment will continue. It is made clear that this court has not considered the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. The disposal of the suit by the learned Munsiff shall be on the basis of the evidence which comes on record and the court will not be unduly influenced by the observations and the apparent findings in Exts.P3 and P6.

srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE


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.