Jayan vs Muhammed
2022 Latest Caselaw 2346 Ker

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                               PRESENT
                               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

                      Wednesday, the 2nd day of March 2022 / 11th Phalguna, 1943
                                  IA.NO.1/2022 IN RSA NO. 16 OF 2022
                             AS 44/2018 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
                          OS 416/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

       JAYAN, 44 YEARS S/O. BHARATHAN, PADITHARAYIL VEETTIL, THODIYOOR VADAKKUM MURI,
       THODIYOOR, PIN-690 523,
       KOLLAM DIST

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

       MUHAMMED,38 YEARS, PULIYOOR VANCHI VADAKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR VILLAGE,
       REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AJMAL, S/O. ABOOBAKKER, THONDETHU
       THARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., THODIYOOR VILLAGE, PN-690 523, KOLLAM.DIST

       Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High
Court be pleased to restrain respondent from proceeding with the illegal construction in petition
schedule property in pursuance of the Judgment and Decree passed in AS.44/2018 of the Sub Court,
Karunagapally till the disposal of this RSA.
       This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the affidavit filed in
support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.K.RAMACHANDRAN, PRAKASH M.
PANJIKARAN, R.K.PRASANTH, Advocates for the petitioner, the court passed the following:
                            SHIRCY V., J
           ---------------------------------------------
                      R.S.A.No.16 of 2022
      ------------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 02nd day of March, 2022

                            ORDER

Heard. Admitted.

The following substantial questions of law are formulated

for consideration:

a) Whether the courts below were justified in not accepting the admission made by the respondent regarding the stop memo Ext.A5 by the Karunagapally Municipality as sufficient proof of the illegality pointed out regarding the construction in the A schedule property?

b) Did the courts below err in holding that the respondent has discharged the onus of proof regarding the alleged withdrawal of Ext.A5 stop memo which is binding on him?

c) Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff has approached the court with material suppression?

I.A.No.1 of 2022

The respondent/defendant is restrained from effecting

construction of the wall of the building of the petition schedule

building, without valid permit from the Municipality until further

orders. But it is made clear that he can continue with the

construction work of the roof as permitted by the Municipality by

the permit issued (T.P - 325/16500/14) to him.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

smm

02-03-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar