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

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40645

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
GOPI K.S. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/28662/2020



Advocates:
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ, SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI, SMT.SREELAKSHMI R.R., SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M., SRI.ANTONY SHYJU, SMT.REKHA C. NAIR, SR. GP

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued when the matter is sub judice before a civil court.

Headnote:

Writ - Mandamus - Article 226 - The court refrained from intervening in a matter pending before the civil court, emphasizing the importance of resolving property disputes via appropriate legal channels.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to cut down a Mahagani tree on their property, claiming it posed a danger. The 2nd respondent intervened citing an ongoing civil suit regarding the property boundary.

Issues: Whether the court could issue a writ order when a related civil suit was pending.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would not interfere with ongoing civil proceedings, reinforcing the jurisdictional boundaries of writ petitions.

Final Decision: Writ petition closed, advising petitioner to seek relief from the civil court.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 2nd respondent not to prevent the petitioner from cutting and removing the Mahagani tree standing on the southern side of the property having an extent of 4 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.59/14/1 in Chengannur Village. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 2nd respondent to grant adequate police protection to the petitioner from cutting and removing the Mahagani tree standing on the southern side of the property having an extent of 4 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.59/14/1 in Chengannur Village.

iii) grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 11.02.2021, this Court passed the following order:

“When this matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the daughter of the 3rd respondent, a certain Geetha has filed O.S.No.323 of 2020 before the Munsiff Court, Chengannur seeking declaration and injunction and the same is pending. It is further submitted that when steps were taken by the petitioner to cut down the tree in an item of property wherein claim is raised by the said person, the police had intervened to prevent the commission of any cognizable offence. The allegation of harassment by the police has no basis is the submission.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks an adjournment to get instructions from his party.”

3. Today, when this matter came up for consideration the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition a suit is filed before the civil court for fixation of boundary and other connected reliefs. According to the petitioner, a tree is dangerously leaning towards the neighbour's property and that is to be cut and removed.

4. When the matter is ceased by the civil court, this Court is not in a position to pass any order invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The petitioner is free to approach the civil court or other statutory authorities with appropriate petitions. All the contentions of the petitioner and the contesting respondent in this writ petition are left open.

With the above observation, this writ petition is closed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

DM

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28662/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE-DEED NO.1726/1988 OF S.R.O.CHENGANNUR DATED 30/07/1988.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT PERTAINING TO SY.NO.59/14/1 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENGANNUR DATED

18/11/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.209/1988 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR DATED 29/06/1993.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.141/1993 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKARA DATED 26/07/1997.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.A.NO.404/1998 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 20/06/2008.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/12/2020.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDG

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 Back to top