Kerala High Court
Abraham Daniel vs Ayyappa Hydro Power Ltd on 18 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 515 OF 2022
IN OS 51/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.3/2022/PLAINTIFF IN
O.S.NO.51/2017:
ABRAHAM DANIEL
AGED 52 YEARS
S.O.K.K.DANIEL, KADAKKETHU HOUSE, MANAKKAYAM,
KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, CHITTAR P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689663.
BY ADVS.
V.PHILIP MATHEWS
GIBI.C.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN IA.NO.3/2022/DEFENDANTS IN
O.S.NO.51/2017:
1 M/S.AYYAPPA HYDRO POWER LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 39/925-926,
SIDHIVINAYAK SOCIETY, MAHAVIR NAGAR, KANDIVALI
(WEST), MUMBAI- 400067
AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT : AZIMGANJ HOUSE
(FIRST FLOOR), 7-CAMAC STREET,
KOLKATTA- 700017 AND
HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT KARIKAYAM P.O,
KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKKARAMURI, CHITTAR VILLAGE,
KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689663.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645.
O.P(C).No.515/2022 2
3 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY -
SEIAA
DEVIKRIPA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024 REPREENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ADOOR P.O, ADOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 691523.
5 THE TAHSILDAR
KONNI TALUK OFFICE, KONNI P.O,,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689691.
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DENNY DEVASSY
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2022, THE COURT ON 18.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P(C).No.515/2022 3
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
O.P(C).No.515 of 2022
================================
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
In this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.51/2007 pending before the Munsiff Court, Ranni assails
order in I.A.No.3/2022 dated 18.02.2022, whereby the learned
Munsiff dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to produce
certain documents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on
admission.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued
elaboratedly to convince this Court that during cross examination
of DW1 though DW1 deposed before the court that the 1 st
defendant company had conducted necessary studies with regard to
the extent of land required for spreading water and also DW1 was
ready to produce the title documents of the defendants before the
court, later the said documents not produced. It is at this juncture,
the petitioner filed an application for directing the 1 st defendant
company to produce the following documents:
1. The Document Number of the title document whereby
the first defendant company purchased land and other immovable
properties, if any, from Travancore Electro Chemical Industries
Ltd. and also the document numbers of all the subsequent Sale
Deeds whereby the first defendant company has purchased the land
required for the operation of the Karikayam Hydro Power Project.
2. The study report obtained by the company, showing the
total extent of land required for spreading Dam water to run the
project maintaining the water level in the Dam at 49 meters MSL.
3. The register/file showing the advance intimations given
to the District Collector, Pathanamthitta by the first defendant
company for raising the water level in the Dam owned by the first
defendant from January 2017 to October 2021.
4. The learned counsel would urge that production of the
said documents is necessary to address the grievance of the
petitioner.
5. Ext.P5 produced herein is the judgment of this Court
dated 03.01.2022 in O.P(C).No.2495/2021. In
O.P(C).No.2495/2021 the petitioner herein challenged another
order in I.A.No.3/2021 dated 03.12.2021 in the same Suit, wherein
the learned Munsiff refused to give direction to the 1 st defendant to
produce 3 documents, including the title deed of the 1 st defendant.
While appraising the contentions raised in the above Original
Petition, this Court observed in para.4 of Ext.P5 judgment as under:
"4. When I have ascertained the prayers in the Suit, it
appears that the Suit is one for simple injunction restraining the
defendants orany other persons acting under them from raising the
water level in the Dam owned by the first defendant in such a way
as to cause percolation of submergment of plaint schedule property
or its portions in Dam water, causing any sort of inconvenience,
nuisance or damage to plaint schedule property and the building
and other structures therein from raising the water level in the
Dam without acquiring/purchasing necessary land required for the
full utility of the Dam capacity, in accordance with law and also
from raising the water level in the Dam without obtaining all the
required licenss and permissions from the concerned Statutory
Authorities.
This is the context on which the learned Munsiff dismissed Ext.P2
application by Ext.P4 order stating that production of the above
documents including the title deed was not necessary to decide the
controversy in the Suit. Going by the prayers, it has to be noted
that the title deed of the defendants is not a relevant document to
decide the issue in this case. Much less, the documents sought to
be produced by the plaintiff, are not relevant to decide this case,
which is one for simple injunction. The learned Munsiff rightly
dismissed the petition holding the view that the documents sought
to be produced are not relevant in deciding the issue in an
injunction Suit of this nature (O.S.No.51/2017). Hence,
interference of this Court is not warranted in a matter like this and
the Original Petition deserves dismissal.
6. In fact, a prayer, which was rejected and confirmed by
this Court, has been moulded in a different way and accordingly
I.A.No.3/2022, which resulted in passing Ext.P7 impugned order
has been filed. Therefore, the second petition filed as
I.A.No.3/2022 seeking somewhat same relief, which was negatived
by the Munsiff earlier and confirmed by this Court as per Ext.P5
judgment, cannot be considered at all. A pertinent aspect in this
context is the reluctance on the part of the petitioner to extract the
details when DW1 was cross examined. While examining DW1,
the petitioner's counsel could very well ask the questions relating to
the documents sought to be produced. But leaving DW1 without
asking the relevant details, I.A.No.3/2022 was filed thereafter. In
this context, dilatory tactics could not be ruled out. Because of
these reasons, the learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. I cannot
find any arbitrariness, perversity or absolute illegality in the order
impugned.
Hence the Original Petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 515/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.51/2017.
Exhibit P2 COPY OF I.A.NO.3/2021 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.51/2017.
Exhibit P3 COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO I.A.NO.3/2021.
Exhibit P4 COPY OF ORDER DATED 03-12-2021 PASSED BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNY IN
I.A.NO.3/2021 IN O.S.NO.51/2017.
Exhibit P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 03-01-2022 PASSED
IN OP(C)NO.2495/2021.
Exhibit P6 COPY OF I.A.NO.3/2022 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.51/2017.
Exhibit P7 COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-02-2022 PASSED BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNY IN
I.A.NO.3/2022 IN O.S.NO.51/2017.
