Allowed

Thomas P.John v. Geojit Financial Ser.Ltd

Kerala HC13 Nov 2007CRP/963/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition set aside the High Court and High Court. This revision petition set aside the order of the Principal Munsiff. The revision set aside the order because the court should have considered Order 9 Rule 4 before dismissing the application for non-appearance, noting that the lower court found the suit was a fit case to allow but then dismissed it based on maintainability. The petit

What did the court decide?

The order under challenge set aside; IA 10108/06 allowed; suit restored to file with time to complete steps and then decided on merits after hearing both sides.

Thomas P.John Vs Geojit Financial Ser.Ltd — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

CRP.No. 963 of 2007()

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/02/2007 IN IA.10108/06 IN OS.186/2006 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM ....................

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF:

¶8

-----------------------------------

¶9

THOMAS P.JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, MAMALA POST, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN SRI.MOUNEESH M.R.

¶11

RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS:

¶12

----------------------------------

¶13

1. GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD., FINANCE TOWERS, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

¶14

2. M/S. KARVY CONSULTANTS LTD., UNIT RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD., FORFEITURE CELL, KARVY HOUSE, 46, ROAD NO.IV, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500034.

¶15

3. RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED, AVDESH HOUSE, IIND FLOOR, PRITAM NAGAR,1ST SLOPE, ELISBRIDGE, AHAMMEDABAD-380006.

¶16

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 963 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2007.

¶19

This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam in I.A.10108/06 in O.S.186/06. The suit was dismissed for not taking steps and an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 4. A perusal of the order would reveal that steps were directed to be taken and it was cured but on the date when the case was posted it is stated that there was no proper representation. It is denied by the writ petitioner. The Court below itself found that from the factual back ground it appears that this is a fit case to allow the application as prayed but later on found that the suit may not be maintainable in the light of an arbitration clause. I feel while considering the application under Order 9 Rule 4, the Court should not have considered the same but if there are grounds should have allowed it and thereafter after hearing both sides decide to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and I.A.10108/06 is allowed and the

¶20

CRP NO. 963 of 2007

¶21

-:2:-

¶22

learned Munsiff is directed to restore the suit back to file, give sufficient time for completing the steps and then decide the matter and proceed in accordance with law. Since I am disposing of the matter at the admission stage itself the Court shall give notice to the persons who had already entered appearance through their counsel.

¶23

The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶25

ul/-

Thomas P.John v. Geojit Financial Ser.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas P.John v. Geojit Financial Ser.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rajappan Nair Vs Mathew Philip

Punnan Philip S. Vs Nithya Jacob

Manikandan Nair Vs Ratheesh

Krishna Pillai Chellappan Pillai Vs Krishnan Kochukunju Panicker

K.S.E.Board Vs K.S.Mohammed

A.a.Muhammed Haneefa Vs Federal Bank Ltd.