Kerala High Court
Unknown vs St on 12 June, 2014
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/22ND JYAISHTA, 1936
RSA.NO. 588 OF 2014
-----------------------------
[A.S.NO. 5/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, VADAKARA
O.S.NO.30/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM]
........
APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN A.S.NO. 5/2013 - SUB COURT, VATAKARA/
1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.30/2011 - MUNSIFF , NADAPURAM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VADAKKEL AMMED, S/O.ALI, AGED 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THRIKKEKUNNATH,
KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN,
SRI.PARTHASARATHY.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN A.S.NO. 5/2013 SUB COURT,VATAKARA/
SUPPL.PLAINTIFFS AND 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.30/2011 - MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL BIYYATHU,
W/O.KUNHAMMAD,AGED 72 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE, KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
2. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL ABDUL HAMMED,
S/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 55 YEARS,TRADER, KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
3. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL ABDULLA,
S/O.KUNHAMMAD,AGED 44 YEARS,
TRADER, KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
4. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL FAISAL MASTER,
S/O.KUNHAMMAD,AGED 40 YEARS,KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
Prv.
R.S.A. NO.588/2014:
5. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL SULEKHA,
D/O.KUNHAMMAD,AGED 52 YEARS,KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
6. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL SAINABA,
D/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 50 YEARS,KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
7. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL SELMA,
D/O.KUNHAMMAD,AGED 47 YEARS,KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
8. MAVULLADATHIL THAIKKANDIYIL NAJMA,
D/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 42 YEARS,KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK- 673 101., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE.
9. THAIKKANDIYIL BASHEER,
S/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 42 YEARS,KAYAKKODI AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-673 101.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.S.A. No.588 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Eschewing all the unnecessary contentions raised on behalf of the appellant based on Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree granted reads as follows:
"In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:
1) The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from carrying out quarrying works in the plaint B schedule property without proper licence and permits from the authorities concerned.
2) The plaintiff is entitled to costs in the suit."
2. Both the courts below found that at the relevant time, the defendants did not have statutory documents required for quarrying and therefore the courts below took the view that even assuming no damage is caused to the plaintiff, allowing the defendant to carry out the quarrying work is permitting him to do an illegal act. R.S.A. No.588 of 2014 -2-
3. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that he had applied for D&O licence and the application was pending and that has not been taken note of and without taking note of that fact, decree has been passed and confirmed in appeal.
4. The learned counsel apprehends that the application already filed may be rejected and that may cause prejudice to him. The learned counsel prays that if a proper application is made, he is entitled to get a licence as per law and the present decree may not stand in the way.
Observing that the decree now granted will not stand in the way of defendants making proper application for D & O licence and the authorities may consider the application in accordance with law, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds //True Copy// P.A. To Judge