Franco v. Nitta Gelatine India Limited
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2015/15TH ASHADHA, 193 OP(C).No.1444 of 2015 (O) ------------------------------------ E.A NO.92/2015 IN E.P NO.154/2015 IN O.S NO.200/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKKUDY.
..
PETITIONER:
------------------- FRANCO,AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.THELEKKATT MATHEW, THELAKKAT HOUSE,KADUKUTTY DESOM, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.MANU GOVIND SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH RESPONDENT:
---------------------- NITTA GELATINE INDIA LIMITED,REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,SHAJI MOHAN,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN,FLAT NO.7D, JM TOWER,VADUTHALA,KOCHI-682 023.
R1 BY SRI.K.ANAND (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV.SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk
OP(C).No.1444 of 2015 (O) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24-03-2014 IN OS 200/2011 OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT,CHALAKKUDY.
EXHIBIT P2:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2015 IN E.A 93/2015 IN EP 154/2015 IN OS 200/2011 OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF-COURT,CHALAKUDY.
EXHIBIT P3:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 23/05/2015.
EXHIBIT P4:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2015 IN E.A 92/2015 IN EP 154/2015 IN OS 200/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P.(C) No.1444 of 2015 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The pipe flowing the water installed by the respondents company is passing through the property of the petitioner. The said right to the respondents was granted by the predecessor-in-interest of the property of the petitioner. Claiming that obstructions are being caused to the flow of water through the pipeline, the respondents had approached the court below through E.A.No.92/2015 in E.P.No.154/2015 in O.S.No.200/2011. The court below has passed Ext.P4 order as follows:- "In the result, the E.A. is allowed in part and the decree holder is allowed to remove obstructions, if any, caused to the pipeline passing through the B schedule property and to undertake and the maintenance work of the pipeline at its expense. The decree holder shall undertake the repairs without any damage to the B schedule property and shall restore the same to its original position after undertaking the repairs at the supervision of the commissioner."
OPC.1444/2015 : 2 :
2.
A Commission was taken out and the Commissioner has inspected the property. Even though the Commissioner could see a broken portion on the pipe, it could be found that no obstruction was caused to the flow of water. The present complaint of the petitioner is that frequently, intrusions are made into their property by the respondents under the guise of the inspection to the pipeline. Of course, that cannot be curtailed as it is the right of the company to cause the flow of water through the pipeline, which passes through the property of the petitioner. The said permission was granted by the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner. Presently, Ext.P4 order does not require any interference at all.
In the result, this OP(Civil) is closed.
Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/06/07 // True Copy // PA to Judge