Kerala High Court
Alice Vincent vs Tessy on 11 September, 2012
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/20TH BHADRA 1934
SA.NO. 84 OF 2000 (B)
-----------------------------------
AS.139/1998 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
OS.168/1995 OF III MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALICE VINCENT, W/O.VINCENT,
HOUSE NO.225, 3RD WARD,
THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & 2ND DEFENDANT:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TESSY, D/O.THAIKANATH CHERPUKAN SYLVESTER,
NELLIKUNNU DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK.
2. THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM )
BY ADV. SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN ) R1
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R2
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
S.A. No.84 of 2000
====================================
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The Second Appeal is at the instance of the 1st defendant in O.S. No.168 of 1995 of the Third Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur. That is a suit for injunction filed by the 1st respondent against the appellant and the 2nd respondent to restrain the appellant from cutting marble by using electric motor in the plaint B schedule. The trial court, as per judgment dated 31.08.1998 granted a decree restraining the appellant from cutting marble by using electric motor in the plaint B schedule. There was also a decree against the 2nd defendant-2nd respondent renewing the licence to the appellant for further period until the appellant complied with the directions of the Pollution Control Board.
2. Appellant challenged that judgment and decree in the District Court, Thrissur in A.S. No.139 of 1998. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal in part and the judgment and decree of the trial court were upheld subject to the condition that the appellant may apply to the trial court which passed the decree for modification of the decree if the appellant satisfies the court that the stipulations in Ext.C2, order as modified from time to time have S.A. No.84 of 2000 -: 2 :- been complied with and that running of the marble cutting activity will not in any way cause any objectionable and actionable nuisance to the appellant. That modified judgment and decree are under challenge in this Second Appeal at the instance of the 1st defendant in the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has disposed of the plaint B schedule and that information the learned counsel has received is that the marble cutting unit in the plaint B schedule has been wound up. In the circumstances the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal further.
4. The submission made by the learned counsel is recorded.
The Second Appeal is dismissed as not being prosecuted further, without any order as to costs.
All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv