Kerala High Court
Media Systems India Soft Solutions ... vs N M Ali
Author: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/14TH POUSHA, 1938
OP(C).No. 9 of 2017 (O)
------------------------
IA 8520/2016 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 24-12-0216
-----------
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
-------------------------------
MEDIA SYSTEMS INDIA SOFT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,
INFO PARK, LEELA INFOPARK(CARNILVAL),
PHASE-II, UNIT IC, KUSUMAGIRI,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADVS.SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
SMT.RESHMA G.MENON
SMT.K.J.JISMA
SRI.O.U.ANISH RAJ
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
-------------------------------
N M ALI,
S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PADIJARE ERINJERIL,
BRAHMAPURAM P O, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682303.
BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE.K.PAUL(B/O)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
OP(C).No. 9 of 2017 (O)
------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
DATED 17/3/2015.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.INFOPARK/SWCB/167IA/15
DATED 25/6//2015.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO D/540/16-K.DIS
OF THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER DATED 26/3/2016.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 6/10/2016 OF THE
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE NO.D1/3973/16
DATED 25/6/2016 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE
SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT OF MASTER
ENGINEERING SERVICES OF FEBRUARY 2015.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 22/11/2016.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A3-6384/16
DATED 23/11/2016 OF THE RDO MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACTORS ALL RISK INSURANCE
DATED 1/12/2016
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED AS IA
NO 8520 OF 2016 DATED 24.12.2016 IN OS NO.... OF 2016
TO BE FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE AD INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER IN IA
NO 8520 OF 2016 DATED 24/12/2016 OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, ERNAKULAM(VACATION COURT).
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.V.
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
--------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No. 9 of 2017
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
1.This original petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Ext.P11 ex parte ad interim injunction passed by the court below. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was permitted to do the construction work by using DMC piling and chisel cutting based on an order passed by the RDO and therefore, according to the petitioner, the interim injunction order is without any basis. The petitioner further alleges that there is suppression of material facts.
2.The copy of the original petition was served on the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears before the court below.
3.It is now submitted that the injunction petition is posted to tomorrow. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly attempted to argue the matter on the ground that the order cannot be interfered with by O.P.(C) No. 9 of 2017 ..2..
the civil court, I am of the view that the petitioner has to bring the matter to the notice of the civil court by filing a counter affidavit and to seek variation and modification of the injunction order. Considering the urgency involved, this Court is of the view that the interim injunction petition has to be disposed of by the court below within a period of three days after hearing both the parties.
4.It is to be noted that by the interim injunction order, the petitioner was restrained only from conventional mode of piling such as DMC piling and chisel cutting and has not been restrained from hydraulic boring. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is free to do any other activity other than the activities restrained by Ext.P1 injunction order.
5.The original petition is disposed of, as above.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE bka/-