This writ petition challenged Sub Court orders allowing late-included applications for reopening evidence. The High Court quashed the non-speaking orders and directed fresh disposal after hearing objections.
Orders Ext.P9 and P10 quashed; Sub Court directed to dispose applications afresh after hearing objections.
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 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930
WP(C).No. 5487 of 2008(C) ------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 242/97 IN OS.863/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------------
BIJU, S/O.PURATHOOR THOTTUNGAL GEORGE, THANNYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
RESPONDENT: ----------------------JAYARAJ, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ERENEZHATH VENGALI RAMU, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.5487/2008 C
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1: | COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.863/2002 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRICHUR DTD. 17/10/2002. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2: | COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.863/2002 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRICHUR DTD. 14/3/2003. |
| EXT.P3: | COPY OF THE PLAINT IN THE SUIT INSTITUTED AS O.S.242/1997 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES' COURT, TRICHUR DTD. 17/06/97. |
| EXT.P4: | COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.242/1997 DTD. 28/08/98. |
| EXT.P5: | COPY OF THE ADDITIONALWRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.242/97 DTD. 20/02/2006. |
| EXT.P6: | COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 28/09/1996 PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW ALONG WITH EXT.P3 PLAINT. |
| EXT.P7: | COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS I.A.NO.6971/2007 IN O.S.NO.863/2002 DTD. 9/11/2007. |
| EXT.P8: | COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.6971/2007 OM O.S.NO.863/02 DTD. 15/11/2007. |
| EXT.P9: | COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/11/2007 IN I.A.NO.6971/07 IN O.S.NO.863/02. |
| EXT.P10: | COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN I.A.NO.6972/07 IN DTD. 28/11/2007 REOPENING THE EVIDENCE IN O.S.863/02. |
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
W.P.(C) NO.5487 OF 2008 ===========================
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Defendant in O.S.863/2002 on the file of Sub
Court, Thrissur is the Petitioner. Plaintiff is the respondent. Suit is for specific performance to reconvey the property covered by a document in
favour of respondent. Petitioner in turn filed O.S.242/1997 against the respondent for specific
performance of an agreement for sale. In O.S.863/2002, respondent plaintiff filed
I.A.6971/2007 and 6972/2007 which were allowed by learned Sub Judge respectively under Exts.P9 and P10 orders. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said orders.
W.P.(C)5487/2008 2
in an application to reopen the evidence. These applications were filed after the evidence in the
suit was closed and when the suit stood posted for arguments. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Sub Judge did not consider the objection and allowed the application without considering the
objection raised by the petitioner and that too
without a speaking order. Ext.P9 order reads:-
costs.”
Ext.P10 reads:-
Allowed.
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing
for petitioner when the evidence in the suit was recorded and the case was posted for argument and objections to the petitions are filed, learned Sub Judge is expected to hear the parties and consider
W.P.(C)5487/2008 3
the objections raised and pass a reasoned order. The orders do not show what was the dispute in the suit, why the petition was not filed earlier and why the petition is to be allowed. Though Ext.P9 shows that it was allowed on cost what is the cost also not shown.As Exts.P9 and P10 are not speaking orders, they are quashed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of I.A.6971/2007 and I.A.6972/2007 afresh after considering the objections raised by petitioner and hearing the parties.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
--------------------W.P.(C).NO. /06
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders of the Sub Court allowing late-included applications were legal as they were not speaking orders passed without hearing objections.
Whether the High Court should quash the impugned orders under Article 227 and remand for fresh disposal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
BIJU, S/O.PURATHOOR THOTTUNGAL GEORGE
JAYARAJ
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
