Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.M.MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 49 versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.M.MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 49 v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 33799 of 2006(W) [2007] RD-KL 13410 (18 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33799 of 2006(W)

1. P.M.MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 49,
... Petitioner

2. ANAZ P.S., AGED 29,

3. ABOOBACKER, AGED 56, S/O.MYTHEEN,

4. NISSAR P.A., AGEDD 34, S/O.ALIYAR,

5. SALIM P.S., AGED 27,

6. SAIDU MUHAMMED, AGED 57,

7. MYTHEEN M.A., AGED 38,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES

3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),

4. VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :18/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.33799 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 18th July, 2007



JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in Ext.P1 suit for injunction impugns in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution Ext.P3 order of the learned Munsiff under which it has been found that the plaintiffs' valuation of the injunction relief under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. I find that the learned Munsiff has relied on the judgment of this court in Kunharamu v. Kunhalankutty (2003(1) KLT 216) and held that since in essence the reliefs sought for is an injunction restraining the authorities under the Revenue Recovery Act from proceeding against the persons and properties of the petitioners for recovery of a total amount of Rs.15,51,559/- mentioned in the demand notice, the proviso to Section 27(c) applies. The strenuous and persuasive submissions of Mr.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners notwithstanding, I am unable to agree that the judgment of this court in Kunharamu v. Kunhalankutty (supra) does not lay down the law correctly. At any rate the impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated to the extent of warranting interference under the visitorial jurisdiction of this court which is invoked only in exceptional circumstances. I W.P.C.No.33799/06 - 2 - confirm the impugned order and dismiss the Writ Petition. However the time for filing application for seeking appropriate amendments and for remittance of court fees is enlarged by one month from today.

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.