ORDER :

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. - This appeal is representative of the large number of cases which are filed in the Courts across the country and which consume valuable time of the Courts without any tangible justification. The very fact that the Division Bench of the High Court devoted time to record an order running into 56 typed sheets and also the fact that this Court has devoted many hours including two hours hearing of today indicates how a purely civil and private litigation, camouflaged as a public interest litigation, puts unnecessary burden on the Courts and results in wastage of time which could otherwise be devoted for those who are waiting for years together with the hope that some day they will get an opportunity of hearing. This case is also illustrative of how a litigant pursues two remedies simultaneously and takes chance of getting favourable result from one or the other judicial forum.

2. The appellant and respondent No.6 are close relatives. Respondent No.6 (since deceased) is the real uncle of the appellant. Respondent No.7, of which respondent No.6 was the Managing Director availed loan of rupees five crores from the Tourism Finance Corporation of India for the construction of a three star hotel on a piece of land belonging to respondent No.6 and applied for exemption under the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 Act') read with Kerala Building Rules 1984 (for short, 'the 1984 Rules') and succeeded in convincing the competent authority to grant exemption. The first exemption was granted by an order issued sometime in 1990. Two other exemption orders were issued in 1991 and 1996.

3. On 3.1.1995, the appellant filed Original Suit No. 17 of 1995 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

"A) allowing the plaintiff to realise a sum of Rs. 25000/- by way of damages from defendants 1 to 6 and their assets for damages caused to the plaintiff's eastern compound wall and the plaint schedule property.

B) a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 for their agents from trespassing upon or committing waste in the plaint schedule property or from causing the subsidence or collapse of the soil and structures therein by removing or weakening the lateral support.

C) a mandatory injunction compelling defendants 1 to 6 to restore the collapsed portion of the eastern boundary wall of the plaint schedule property and the platform and to fill up the subsided area with soil under the supervision of the court and to restore and maintain lateral support to the plaint schedule property or in the alternative allow the plaintiff to carry out this work at the defendant's cost.

D) A mandatory injunction compelling the seventh defendant to restrain defendants I to 6 from carrying out any further constructions at Woody's Hotel, M.G. Road, Ernakulam in violation of the Kerala Building Rules and the approved sanction and plan and to demolish all constructions already made therein violation thereof.

E) allowing the plaintiff to realise an amount of Rs. 75000/- from the defendants 1 to 6 and their assets in lieu of damages caused to the plaintiff's residential house in the plaint schedule property.

F) a permanent prohibitory injunction prohibiting the defendants 1 to 6 from carrying out any construction using pile drivers and from operating heavy generators in the plot of land immediately to the east of the plaint schedule property."

4. The appellant also applied for temporary injunction but could not persuade the trial Court to entertain his prayer.

5. The Court Commissioner appointed by the trial Court submitted report, which was not favourable to the appellant. This prompted him to institute a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of relief which included a declaration that Sections 407 and 410 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Section 263-A of the Kerala Munic