SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Mad) 17

R.BALASUBRAMANIAN
E. Preman – Appellant
Versus
M. P. Andy – Respondent


Advocates:
D.Saravanan for K.T. Palpandian, for Petitioners. S. Godwill, for Mrs.O.K. Sridevi, for Respondent.

Judgment :

In this revision Petition the revision petitioner is challenging the order dated 212. 1986 in Reference No.5066/02/85 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Mahe. A few facts are essential to be stated in this case. The revision petitioner and the sole respondent are neighbours. There is admittedly a tree situated in the house of the revision petitioner. On 29. 1985 the respondent gave a complaint to the Executive Magistrate, complaining that the existence of the tree in the hours of the revision petitioner is a source of nuisance not only to his personnel safety but also to his property. In other words him grievance was that the tree is situated in such a manner that it is likely to fall at any time on his house and thereby cause danger to his personal safety as well as damages to the property. On this basis he moved the Executive Magistrate to take appropriate steps to protect him.

2. The Executive Magistrate passed an order under Sec.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12. 1985, directing the removal of the tree as a whole. Thereafter, the revision Petitioner filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating that the pet







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top