MOHANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the 5th respondent in the Original Petition. The petitioner in the writ petition is the respondent No. 6 in the present appeal. He is a purchaser of 1 cent of land contiguous to the house constructed by the appellant. From the facts of this case, it appears that the 6th respondent - the original petitioner, was determined to put all kinds of objections against the valid right of the appellant in the construction of his house. Not only that a suit was filed before the Court of Munsiff, Kannur, by the original petitioner and his sister, which is still pending, even the service of the criminals were obtained to put obstruction in the valid exercise of the right of the appellant over the construction of his house. Having failed to obtain a temporary injunction from the court of the learned Munsiff, another circuitous method was adopted to harass the appellant by influencing the police authorities and the appellant was dragged to the Police Station which gave an earlier occasion to the appellant to come to this Court by filing O.P. 6091/96 asking for a direction to the Police authorities restraining them from interfering with the civil disputes. Pending that original petition filed by the appellant, the direction was given in the C.P.P 10491/96 restraining the police officers from interfering with the civil disputes. The interim direction of this court is contained in the Order dated 26.4.96. The notice of the same was accepted by the 6th respondent. The matter did not end there. The 6th respondent namely, Sri. Tajudin being the original petitioner in O.P. 8474/96, persuaded his remedy further by seeking an appointment of Advocate Commissioner on the ground of violation of Kerala Building Rules, The appointment of the Commissioner was sought with a view to obtain report about the nature and the situation of the constructed building and other particulars to be gathered by taking it measurements. But for the reasons best known to them, it was not pursued and was dismissed as not pressed. The ground relating to violation of the Building Rules remained undecided. The First Information Report lodged by the appellant alleging trespass at the hands of the 6th respondent - the original petitioner, is pending with the Police authorities without any progress. It was alleged that the original petitioner Sri. Tajudin had taken law in his own hands and a posse of miscreants trespassed into the appellant's property and caused damages to the construction by demolishing it. They were alleged to be the agents of Sri. Tajudin. The First Information Report was therefore, lodged for offences under S.447, 427, 379, 506(ii) read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pointed out by the counsel that a complaint was also filed by the appellant before the Police which has been registered as Crime No. 163/96 of Valapattanam Police Station. It is also pointed out that the 6th respondent has lodged a complaint before the police as against the appellant which is registered as Crime No. 95/96 of Valapattanam Police Station under S.143, 147, 447, 323 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) We are now to consider the question raised in the writ petition and the appeal in the background of these facts and now we proceed to consider the question raised in this appeal.

(3.) At the outset the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the material facts were suppressed from the Court when the O.P. 8474/96 was filed by Tajudin (respondent No. 6 in the appeal). As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the Tajudin, 6th respondent in the appeal, has pointed out that he had mentioned about the filing of the original suit in the Court of Munsiff for injunction and the pendency of it. But then it has to be seen that the interim injunction had not been granted and this fact was not stated. Further the filing of the criminal case, the interference by the Police at their instance, trespass by the miscreants who were the agents of Tajudin and causing damage by demolishing the construction of the appellant, were not mentioned which gave rise to the filing of the First Information Report against them. Even the filing of their first Information Report registered as crime No. 95/96 on 18.3.96 against the appellant was not mentioned. Further, the application moved in the Munsiff's Court for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner alleging violation of the Kerala Building Rules was not mentioned and they did not pursue the said proceedings under Exts. R5(a) and R5(b) and the matter relating to the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner was ultimately dismissed as not pressed.