1 are private individuals and both are claiming their rights of ownership and possession over the flat in question on various factual grounds.
Facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
15385/2017 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and directed the appellant herein, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to restore the possession of the flat in question to respondent No.1 herein.
15385 of 2017 before the High Court of Kerala against the appellant herein and other respondents local police authorities seeking therein a relief of restoration of his possession over the flat in question.
In our companysidered opinion, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.
In other words, the High Court ought to have declined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution for grant of reliefs claimed therein.
1 herein.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent No.
807/2014 between the appellant and the respondent No.
5 of the writ petition in this Court.
The short question, which arises for companysideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent No.
In the light of such background facts arising in the case, we are of the companysidered opinion that the filing of the writ petition by respondent No.
By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant respondent No.
3D, 3 rd floor located in building known as Royal CourtBlock IV at Kozhikode hereinafter referred to as the flat and is between the appellant and respondent No.
5 in the writ petition to restore the possession of the flat in question to respondent No.
1 herein out of which this appeal arises.
It is also number in dispute that one Civil Suit No.
1 herein writ petitioner in the High Court which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by respondent No.
1 herein and Secondly, whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus against the appellant directing him to restore the possession of the flat to respondent No.
Respondent No.
Heard Mr. Haris Beeran, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Basant, learned senior companynsel, Mr. A.K. Joseph and Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned companynsel for the respondents.
1 herein against the appellant herein under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court, out of which this appeal arises, was wholly misconceived.
It is also number in dispute that the appellant and the respondent No.
The dispute essentially relates to the possession of a flat bearing No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
1 in relation to the flat in question for grant of injunction was pending in the Court of Munsif at Kozhikode.
1 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the appellant before the High Court for grant of relief of restoration of the possession of the flat in question was number maintainable and the same ought to have been dismissed in limine as being number maintainable.
They, however, need mention in brief infra to appreciate the short question involved in this appeal.
1 filed a writ petition being P. C No.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the High Signature Not Verified Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition C Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.12.03 170037 IST Reason No.
1 herein against the appellant pertained to possession of the flat.
It is number in dispute that the reliefs for which the writ petition was filed by respondent No.
The appellant companytested the writ petition on various factual and legal grounds including raising an objection about the maintainability of the writ petition and the reliefs claimed therein.
