KHAIRUNNISA Vs. G SARALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case illustrates a classic instance of abuse of process of court by a litigant. A building bearing No. 1/1319-1324 in Vizhinjam Panchayath, it was alleged, was being constructed by the contesting first respondent in violation of the Building Rules. The appellant complained to the local authority of this violation. They, on being satisfied of the violation, issued a stop memo on 21.8.2000 to the first respondent calling upon him not to proceed further with the construction. But the construction continued unabated and according to the appellant, the local authority did not take any steps to dismantle the infringing construction. Thereupon, the appellant approached this court and filed O.P.No.26055 of 2000 seeking, inter alia, appropriate directions to the local authority to enforce its decision dated 21.8.2000 forbidding the continued construction of the building by the first respondent. The first respondent was party to the said proceedings and she was impleaded as the 4th respondent. This writ petition was filed on 4.9.2000. This Court finally disposed of the said Original Petition on 13.12.2000 in the following manner:

(2.) But before this Court could deal with this contempt case, there was some other development. The first respondent filed O.P.No.11594 of 2001 on 2.4.2001 representing to the court that she had appealed against the final order of the local authority dated 21.8.2000 on 28.12.2000 which was produced as Ext.P6. Alleging that when statutory appeal is pending enforcement of the demolition order is illegal, she sought for a writ of mandamus for the disposal of the appeal.

(3.) The Writ Petition O.P. No. 11594 of 2001 was filed as stated on 2.4.2001 and the earlier judgment dated 13.12.2000 was produced as an exhibit, but strangely the appellant herein who complained of the illegal construction and at whose behest the order dated 21.8.2000 and 15.12.2000 were ordered to be enforced by the judgment was not a party to the said proceedings though the said judgment was an exhibit. The same counsel who appeared for the first respondent in the earlier Original Petition appeared for the petitioner as well. This Court disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage itself and made the following order which has given rise to the present proceedings. This court stated thus: