Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.M.HABEEB versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.M.HABEEB v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - WA No. 1087 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 8434 (24 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1087 of 2007()

1. K.M.HABEEB,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent

2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. SULTHAN,

4. BINU M.KHAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :24/05/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

W.A. No. 1087 of 2007

Dated this the 24th May, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L. DATTU, C.J. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant in the appeal. He is calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1616 of 2007 dated 26.02.2007.

2. The grievance of the appellant before us is that the petitioner in the Writ Petition/the contesting 4th respondent in this appeal, by taking advantage of the orders passed in the Writ Petition is trying to obstruct the right of pathway to the appellant's residence.

3. At this stage, we should notice that the appellant, before us, has already filed a civil suit before the civil court and the same is pending for consideration. The prayer in the suit is that the defendant in the suit shall not obstruct the pathway to the appellant's residence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the orders passed by this court in the Writ Petition, the civil court may not be in a position to decide the suit on merits. W.A. No.1087 OF 2007 2

5. The apprehension of the appellant, in our opinion, is not well founded. Even otherwise, if we direct the civil judge to decide the civil suit filed by the appellant, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition, no prejudice will be caused to the contesting respondent. In that view of the matter, the following: Order.

i. Writ Appeal is disposed of. ii. The learned Judge before whom the civil suit filed by the appellant is pending, is directed to decide the civil suit on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.1616 of 2007. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

sk/DK.


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.