VARGHESE T P PAILY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE had heard Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan as also Sri.Saji Kuriachan appearing for the parties. As pointed out by the learned Judge in judgment dated 23.08.2006, the fight was going on between the brothers in the matter of digging of a well. The appellant had been trying to frustrate the steps by every possible means and the learned Judge was justifiable in coming to such a conclusion, seeing the methodologies that are employed. It had been found that there was an earlier attempt to challenge the order and the writ petition had been withdrawn without reserving the rights and the second writ petition was therefore not maintainable.

(2.) PERHAPS, the appellant had his own reasons to pursue the matter, but we do not think that the learned Judge had erred in appreciating the situation. We uphold the judgment in its entirety, but after hearing the respondents, we think, it may not be necessary to mulct the appellant herein with cost. This is because, the above should not be a bone of contention between the parties for continued litigation. Therefore, the direction in the matter of payment of costs alone is vacated. The writ appeal is dismissed.