Partly allowed

K.P.Anil Kumar v. the Secretary, Kerala Khadi Grama

Kerala HC24 Jul 2008WP(C)/21563/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench under Article 226 quashed an order of the learned Munsiff which dismissed a petition merely as infructuous without considering the merits of the allegation that a court notice violating a decree was issued. The court directed disposal of the pending suit and applications.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 order quashed. Learned Munsiff directed to dispose of pending applications including Ext.P6 and P7 in accordance with law.

K.P.Anil Kumar Vs the Secretary, Kerala Khadi… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 21563 of 2008(P)

¶6

-------------------------OS.252/2005 of MUN-MAGI COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA

PETITIONER:

K.P.ANIL KUMAR

S/O. PARAMESWARAN POILLAI, AGED 38, KAVIL VEEDU THURUTHIKKARA MURI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.N.AJITH

RESPONDENTS:

THE SECRETARY KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

THE PROJECT OFFICER KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD KOLLAM.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

¶17

K.DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 67 YEARS, SANTHI BHAVANAM, THURUTHIKKARA MURI KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶21

........................................... WP(C).No. 21563 OF 2008

¶22

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Ext.P8 order passed in Ext.P6 application and also for a direction to the executing court to consider and pass orders in Ext.P5 and P7 applications. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.252 of 2005 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. Under Ext.P1 judgment dated 22.9.2006, respondents 1 to 3, the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, were restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from proceeding against petitioner as stated in Ext.A1 notice dated 27.7.2005 issued by first respondent, till a decision is arrived at on his membership in Sooranadu Grama Vikasama Society. Ext.P5 execution petition was filed against respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against them for violation of Ext.P2 decree in that suit. Ext.P6 application was filed, contending that in spite of Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P2 decree, Ext.P4 notice was issued for realisation of the amount from the petitioner. Ext.P7 petition was filed for stay of proceedings taken by respondents 1 to 3 for violation of the decree. Learned Munsiff dismissed Ext.P6

¶25

WP(C) 21563/2008

¶26

¶27

application under Ext.P8 order.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that Ext.P8 order is illegal as the contentions of petitioner in Ext.P6 application was not considered by the court at all. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 is an exparte decree and respondents 1 and 2 have taken steps to get the exparte decree set aside.

¶29

On hearing the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader, and going through Ext.P8 order, it is absolutely clear that learned Munsiff did not consider Ext.P6 application on merits. Ext.P6 application, alleging that in violation of Ext.P2 decree, respondents 1 to 3 proceeded against petitioner for realisation of the amount, by issuing Ext.P4 notice and therefore action is to be taken against them, was disposed as follows:-

¶30

“Already execution petition to execute the decree is filed and is pending disposal. Hence this petition has become infructuous and dismissed”.

¶31

Learned Munsiff did not consider the allegation raised by

¶32

WP(C) 21563/2008

¶33

¶34

petitioner with regard to issuance of Ext.P4 notice. But the allegation in Ext.P5 execution petition is also based on Ext.P4. In such circumstances, Ext.P8 order is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose E.P.27 of 2008 and the applications filed by petitioner including Ext.P6 and P7 in accordance with law.

¶35

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶36

lgk/-

K.P.Anil Kumar v. the Secretary, Kerala Khadi Grama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Anil Kumar v. the Secretary, Kerala Khadi Grama

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

Anopkumar and Another Vs Jeeja Ratnam and Others

A.Sivadasan Vs P.P.Dileep Kumar

V.R.Bhaskaran Vs Ameri Padmanabhan

Narayanan Nair Vs Usha Kumari

N.K.Radhakrishnan Vs Leelamma

Kottayam District Co-Op.Bank Vs Saidkutty