Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.SIVADASAN, S/O.RAMAN versus P.P.DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.ACHUTHAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.SIVADASAN, S/O.RAMAN v. P.P.DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.ACHUTHAN - WP(C) No. 34404 of 2005(U) [2007] RD-KL 12105 (5 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34404 of 2005(U)

1. A.SIVADASAN, S/O.RAMAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.P.DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
... Respondent

2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :05/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.34404 OF 2005 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 5th JULY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Impugned in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P8 order passed by the lower appellate court on an application for issuance of commission submitted by the 1st respondent-appellant in C.M.A.No.72 of 2004. The C.M.Appeal was directed against Ext.P5 order of injunction passed by the Munsiff's Court in favour of the petitioner. I am told that another C.M.Appeal has been filed by the Kerala Water Authority, the 2nd respondent herein (2nd defendant in the suit) also. Ext.P6 is the commission application submitted by the 1st respondent. To Ext.P6, the writ petitioner filed Ext.P7 objections in which certain serious contentions are seen raised. The impugned order is a totally non-speaking order in the sense that absolutely no reasons are given by the learned District Judge for justifying his decision. Needless to say that the contentions raised in Ext.P7 are not even adverted to.

2. This Court while admitting this Writ Petition granted stay of Ext.P8 and the same is continuing even now. This being the position, I am of the view that it will suffice if the learned District Judge is directed to dispose of C.M.A.Nos.72 of 2004 and 73 of 2004 on their WP(C)N0.34404/05 merits after hearing both sides. It is open to the respondents to urge before the District Court that for resolving the controversy in the suit, a report on the various aspects mentioned in the present commission application (I.A.No.847 of 2004) is absolutely necessary. If the appellate court is convinced regarding the merits of the request of the respondents, that court can, while disposing of the appeals, issue appropriate directions regarding issuance of fresh commission by the trial court itself. The learned District Judge will take decision in both the appeals as indicated above at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.34404/05 WP(C)N0.34404/05


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.