Allowed

Mohanachandran Nair v. Prince v.Abraham

Kerala HC24 Jun 2008WP(C)/18886/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition to Article 227, this Court held that a direction to dispose of a suit within a specific time frame does not bar parties from adducing evidence. The Munsiff was directed to consider applications to permit evidence adduction on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed; directions issued to the Munsiff to consider applications for adducing evidence on merits.

Mohanachandran Nair Vs Prince v.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 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 18886 of 2008(W) -------------------------OS.700/2005 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM ....................

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR, 69 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, LAOLA NIVAS, ERICADU KARA, PUTHUPPALLY

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.SADER E.REAZ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

PRINCE.V.ABRAHAM, VALIYAPARAMBIL, PROPRIETOR, PRINCE RUBBERS, ERICADU KARA, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KTTAYAM

¶13

K.P.PHILIPOSE, 62, S/O.PHILIPOSE, KODINJIVAYALIL HOUSE,ERICADU PUTHUPPALLY

¶14

THOMAS PUNNEN @ JOY 72 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM PUNNEN, KANJIRAPPALLIL OF ERICADU, PUTHUPPALY, KOTTAYAM

¶15

GEORGE KURIAN, KADIAMTHURUTHY OF ERICADU, PUTHUPPALLY

¶16

K.I.SUDHAKARAN, 55 YEARS KODINJAVAYALIL, ERICADU, PUTHUPPALLY.

¶17

C.C.GEORGEKUTTY, 41 YEARS CHAKAMPUZHAYIL, ANICADU VILLAGE KOTTAYAM

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.18886 of 2008

¶22

Dated this the 24^th June, 2008.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.700 of 2005, on the file of Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Respondents are the defendants. The judgment in C.M.A.No.28/2006 filed by the petitioners challenging the order granting temporary injunction passed by the trial court was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.11186 of 2008. Under Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the trial court to expedite and dispose the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of re-opening of the court, after summer holidays. This Court also directed the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the case. As directed, trial court proceeded with recording the evidence.

¶25

When the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1484 of 2008 & 1188 of 2008 , trial court did not entertain the petitions for the reason that this Court has already fixed a time limit under Ext.P1 judgment. This

¶26

W.P.(C) No.18886/2008

¶27

¶28

petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for enlarging the time fixed in Ext.P1 judgment, as well as to issue necessary direction to the Munsiff to permit petitioners to adduce evidence.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was

¶30

heard.

¶31

Ext.P1 judgment itself shows that this Court found that the subject matter to be resolved involve intricate questions on account of the dispute regarding the alleged pollution of water. The fact that this Court directed to dispose the suit expeditiously, within a time frame, does not mean that court shall shut out the evidence, which will be necessary to prove the case of either parties. As it is submitted that I.A.Nos. 1484 of 2008 & 1188 of 2008 are not being entertained by the trial court on the ground that this Court has fixed a time limit, it is made clear that directions in Ext.P1 to dispose the suit within two months from the date of re-opening of the court, shall not operate as a direction not to permit parties to adduce evidence. The Munsiff is directed to consider the application on merits and permit the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.18886/2008

¶33

¶34

parties to adduce evidence which are relevant and necessary to prove

¶35

the case.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed accordingly.

¶37

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶38

nj.

Mohanachandran Nair v. Prince v.Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanachandran Nair v. Prince v.Abraham

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

Xavier and Others Vs Varkey

Ajayakumar Vs Mammykutty

Sri.Sayed Mohammed Vs C.a.Joseph

Koumary Sankari Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

K.T.Thomas Vs Anna @ Akkamma John

Valayudhan Vs Kochy