SURESH KUMAR Vs. K.S.SREEKUMARA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the defendants in O.S. No. 771 of 2001 of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, a suit filed by the first respondent for a decree for mandatory injunction to direct the petitioners to remove the (allegedly) unauthorised portion of the sunshade on the western side of their building. According to the first respondent, as per the approved building plan and permit the petitioners could have constructed a sunshade having only a width of 75 c.m. but in violation of that, they have constructed a sunshade having a width of 93 c.m. and hence it is unauthorised. The trial court granted a decree in favour of the first respondent which this court in R.S.A. No. 1149 of 2010 also confirmed but leaving it open to the petitioners to seek regularisation of the unauthorised construction.

(2.) PURSUANT to the said direction, petitioners filed application to the second respondent, the local authority for regularisation. That application was dismissed which the petitioners challenged before the Tribunal for local self- Government Institution (for short 'the Tribunal'). That authority by Ext.P4, order dismissed the appeal since the application presented before the Secretary of the second respondent was not in the prescribed form. Even while dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal gave opportunity to the petitioners to prefer proper application before the Secretary of the second respondent. The Secretary of the second respondent was directed to consider such application and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of the application.

(3.) IN the meantime, the first respondent sought execution of the decree in O.S. No. 771 of 2001 as confirmed by this court in R.S.A. No. 1149 of 2010. At that stage, the petitioners have filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for a direction to the second respondent to pass orders on the application preferred on 04.04.2012 for regularisation and which according to the petitioners was pending with that authority even on the date of the Original Petition and to stay proceeding in E.P. No. 465 of 2011 until the second respondent passed orders on the above said application.