The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenged an order for withdrawal of deposited funds. The court upheld the trial court's decision without interference, noting discrepancies in the appellate status.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2007 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 400 of 2004(V) -----------------------OS.69/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR ....................
PETITIONER:
HAVVA UMMA, W/O. MAMAKKANAKATH ABDULKHADER, KURUMBATHUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC : 400 OF 2004
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
W.P.(C) No. 400 OF 2004
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is remaining defective for want of service of notice to 2nd respondent. But I notice from Exts.P1 and P1 (a) judgment and decree that 1st respondent is tenant of the building which is the subject matter of the suit which is one for eviction with arrears of rent. The 1st respondent herein is represented by the Managing partner of M/s.Sakthi Hardwares of which the 2nd respondent is only a partner. Under these circumstances, I dispense with issuance of notice to 2nd respondent. Hence service is complete. There is no representation for the respondents.
submitted by the petitioner plaintiff for withdrawal of a sum of Rs.2,86,900/- deposited by the respondents pursuant to a conditional order of stay granted by the appellate court in an appeal preferred by the respondents is under challenge.
Having gone through Ext.P2 and having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the learned Munsiff was justified in directing the petitioner to move the appellate
WPC NO. 400 of 2004
2
court for appropriate modification or clarification of the stay order. In all probability the appellate court has either modified the order or the appeal itself has already been disposed of at this distance of time. There is no justification for interfering with Ext.P2 and that too under the supervisory jurisdiction.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC NO. 400 of 2004
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition was defectively served and required quashing of the appellate court order.
Havva Umma
Sakthi Hardwares represented by Vattaparambil Usman Haji
Vallaparambil Usman Haji
Pius C. Kuriakose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
