AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by judgment dated 18.11.2010, the unsuccessful Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 34640 of 2010 has preferred this Writ Appeal.
In the year 1998, The Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kochi issued an order in Ext. P1 directing the father of the Appellants (Respondent therein) to demolish the particular compound wall in the property owned by him. Admittedly, the said order was challenged in Crl. R.P. No. 50 of 1998 before the Court of Sessions , Ernakulam and an interim order dated 3rd December 1998, as borne by Ext. P2, was passed in the said revision. Subsequently, Ext. P3 order dated 13th October, 2010 came to be issued. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
whereas it has been made to appear to me that the compound wall in the boundary of your property is leaving towards the pathway causing danger and nuisance to the pedestrians and that such danger and nuisance still exists, I do hereby direct and require you to demolish and remove the compound wall causing danger and nuisance within 7 days or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court 04.11.2010 at 11. A.M. and showcause why this order should not be enforced and file objection if any.
The said order came to be challenged on the ground that the subject matter of Ext. P3 proceedings is same as the subject matter of Ext. P1 order. The Appellants did not choose to place on record as to the out come of Crl.R.P. No. 50 of 1998, which was admittedly filed by their father, except stating that the father of the Appellants died in the meanwhile and the Appellants are not aware of the out come of the said revision.
In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the case of the Appellants does not deserve any examination on merits, in view of the conduct of the Appellants that they are not inclined to disclose full facts of this case. The judgment in appeal does not call for any interference. It is dismissed accordingly.