High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 06 KL CK 0359

Suresh vs Rajappan Joseph

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 23 June 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.Somarajan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (C) NO. 1276 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 360 words

P.Somarajan, J

The petitioner/decree holder came up seeking an early disposal of the claim petition filed by the local people. It is pertaining to a decree of injunction granted in a suit instituted against the public in a representative capacity in compliance with the requirement under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. Publication was made on getting leave under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. The Panchayath is also in the party array of the suit. It is pertaining to an attempt of the local people to cut open of a way through the property of the plaintiff and the suit was ended in a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants as well as the Panchayath. Thereon, the Panchayath took up the matter in appeal, which was also ended in dismissal directing to recover the entire cost of the appeal from the Secretary, who preferred the appeal. It is thereafter Ext.P3 E.P. was filed. Ext.P4 order was passed for putting up boundary within the property of the plaintiff so as to avoid further obstruction to their possession and to prevent the act of commission of waste, against which a C.R.P. was filed before this Court by the defendants and it was also ended in dismissal by ordering cost of Rs.5,000/-. It is thereafter some local residents came up with an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. Since it is a suit instituted with permission under Order I Rule 8 CPC and in compliance with the requirement, the decree of injunction would stand binding on all persons having either title, interest or right over the property, whether it is limited or otherwise and they will stand bound by the decree. Virtually they cannot prefer a claim petition, especially under Rule 97 of Order XXI C.P.C. Since it is for an early disposal of the claim petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. There will be a direction to the trial court to consider and dispose of the claim petition within a time schedule of three weeks, for which the trial court shall issue notice to the counsel for respondents.

The Original Petition will stand allowed accordingly with the abovesaid direction.