AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—The petitioner has approached this court seeking the following prayers:
i) issue a writ in the form of a direction directing the 1st respondent to assist the petitioner to take the bike of the petitioner.
ii) issue a writ in the form of direction directing the first respondent to take up Ext.P3 petition and consider the same as expeditiously as possible.
Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is employed in Dubai. In the year 1998 he brought a bike from Dubai after customs clearance and registered the same in Kerala with registration No. KL8M2803. Ext.P1 is the registration certificate of the bike.
In 1999 there was a family partition in the family of the petitioner and he has signed in the partition deed. After the partition, he went back to Dubai and while he left India the petitioner has kept his bike and house hold articles in the residential house. After partition, the said house was assigned to his brother, Salim. Later Salim demolished the said house to construct a new house. While demolishing the house, house hold articles of the petitioner and the bike were shifted to a shed near that house. Salim informed the petitioner about the shifting of the bike.
Thereafter the second respondent, who is another brother of the petitioner, has some disputes with Salim and second respondent took possession of the said shed. In the year 2003 petitioner came back to India and went to take back his bike. But the second respondent obstructed the petitioner from entering the property. The petitioner filed a petition before the first respondent. Since the leave of the petitioner expired, he left for Dubai. Now he has come back. The second respondent is still threatening the petitioner. He has to renew the registration of the bike and has to go back to Dubai. Therefore he filed petition before the first respondent. But he has not taken any action.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Though served, there is no appearance for the second respondent.
The learned Government Pleader would point out that there is a suit filed by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was dismissed for default of the second respondent. The learned Government Pleader would further point out that Salim is not a party to this Writ Petition.
Having regard to the nature of reliefs sought, it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain this Writ Petition. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, which may have in law, to approach before appropriate forum, this Writ Petition is dismissed.