Disposed

St.Thomas Valiyapally v. Janil Abraham

Kerala HC17 Jun 2008WP(C)/10539/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Munsiff Court which allowed an application for notice publication. The order was quashed because it failed to record reasons for ignoring a filed objection and the lower court did not address whether the prayer was opposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.02.2008 allowing I.A.1738/07 was quashed. Learned Munsiff directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

St.Thomas Valiyapally Vs Janil Abraham — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 10539 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/03/2008 IN IA.1738/07 IN OS.57/2003 OF MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

ST. THOMAS VALIYAPALLY, RANNI, REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICAR, ST.THOMAS VALIYAPALLY, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. JANIL ABRAHAM, KADACKAL VEEDU, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY.

¶13

2. K.M. ABRAHAM, KADACKAL VEEDU, PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY.

¶14

3. P.T. PUNNOOSE, TRUSTEE OF ST.THOMAS VALIYAPALLY, RANNY.

¶15

4. C.K. KURIAKOSE, SECRETARY OF ST.THOMAS VALIYAPALLY, RANNY.

¶16

5. REV.FR.A.P.JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATOR, MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

6. SRI. KURIAKOSE MAR SEVARIOS, MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHINGAVANAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON - R1, 2 SMT.LOVELY SAMSON - R1, 2

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 10539 of 2008

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.P1:THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN O.S.NO.57/2003 EXT.P2:THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER DEFENDANTS

¶24

EXT.P3:THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16.01.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶25

EXT.P4:THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2008 IN I.A.NO.1738/07 IN O.S.NO.57/03 ON THE FILE OF HTE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI

-TRUE COPY-

P.A. TO JUDGE

pac

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶30

DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JUNE, 2008

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

First defendant in O.S.57 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ranni is the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. I.A.1738 of 2007 was filed by respondents 1 and 2 for permission to publish the notice as provided under Order I of Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure in Mangalam daily. Ext.P3 objection was filed by petitioner. Under Ext.P4 order, petition was allowed by learned Munsiff as follows:-

¶33

“ No objection by respondents. Hence

¶34

I.A allowed”.

¶35

It is seen that Ext.P3 objection was filed on 16.1.2008. Ext.P4 order dated 14.2.2008 does not show what was the prayer and what was the relief allowed by the learned Munsiff. Ext.P4 also shows that objection raised under Ext.P3 was not considered by the learned Munsiff.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that at the time of hearing, petitioner's counsel did not oppose the prayer. But Ext.P4 order does not show that the petition was allowed as counsel did not oppose the application.

¶37

WP(C) 10539/2008

¶38

¶39

Instead reason shown was not opposed. In such circumstances, Ext.P4 order is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, in I.A.1738 of 2007. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that paper publication had already been produced. But that will not validate Ext.P4 order.

¶40

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶41

lgk/-

St.Thomas Valiyapally v. Janil Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Thomas Valiyapally v. Janil Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmavathy Amma & Others Vs M.M.George

Nalini.a Vs C.S.Radha Bai

Antony Vs Maanspowen Jackeous

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Bhaskaran

V.Letha Vs R.Murali

Sherly Vs Anoop