Jude Thathevus vs Jacob on 6 February, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jude Thathevus vs Jacob on 6 February, 2020

Bench: Amit Rawal

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

  THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA,
                           1947

                 WP(C).No.34540 OF 2019(N)

PETITIONER/S:

           JUDE THATHEVUS
           AGED 54 YEARS
           S/O.ANTHO, EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, WARD NO.3,
           KUMBLANGHI PANCHAYAT, KOCHI- 682007.

           BY ADV. SMT.NITA.N.S.

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     JACOB,
           S/O.ANTHO, EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, WARD NO.3,
           KUMBLANGHI PANCHAYAT, KOCHI- 682007.

     2     SECRETARY,
           KUMBLANGHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NORTH KUMBALANGI,
           KUMBALANGI, KOCHI- 682007.

     3     KUMBLANGI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NORTH
           KUMBALANGI, KUMBALANGI, KOCHI- 682007.

     4     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
           COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-
           682030.

OTHER PRESENT:

           SR GP SRI RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP        FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.34540 of 2019

                               ..2..




                           JUDGMENT

Prima facie the dispute is between the petitioner and the party respondent, i.e. the 1st respondent, who are admittedly brothers.

2. The counsel for the petitioner, in order to bring the case to the parameters of Article 226 of Constitution of India, has relied upon report dated 20.11.2017, Ext.P4, submitted by an overseer to the Secretary, Kumbalangi Grama Panchayat in support of the argument that opening of a window in a common wall is a violation of the Rules. But no such provision of the Rules in the absence of any sanctioned plan or permission had been cited. It is purely a civil dispute among the brothers and remedy can be always availed by invoking provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure by proving the documents in accordance with law.

With the aforementioned observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE kkj/06.06.2020 W.P.(C) No.34540 of 2019 ..3..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN 2009.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE OVERSEER ON 20.11.2017 BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE ISSUE BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT ON 02.11.2018.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court