Partly allowed

M.K.Ragini v. M.K.Mayavathi

Kerala HC4 Nov 2009CRP/1847/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Revision Petition No. 1847 of 2002 directed the lower court to give the plaintiff an opportunity to examine Dr. S.Santhakumar to prove specific documents via commission, requiring completion within the current month and suit disposal before mid-summer vacation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court to allow examination of Dr. S. Santhakumar via commission to prove documents, with disposal of suit before mid-summer vacation.

M.K.Ragini Vs M.K.Mayavathi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

CRP.No. 1847 of 2002(D)

¶6

---------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/08/2002 IN IA. NO.2377/2002 IN OS.NO.527/1995 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

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

¶9

M.K.RAGINI, D/O. LATE MALLARKANDY KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, T.C.37/1722, SREE DURGA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. M.K.MAYAVATHI, D/O. LATE MALLARKANDY KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, KACHERI AMSOM, KURUMBRAKATTUSSERY DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶14

2. M.K.PREMAVATHY, D/O. MALLARKANDY KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, DO. DO.

¶15

3. BABY @ NEENA, D/O. MALLARKANDY KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 49 YEARS DO. DO.

¶16

4. C.M.RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶17

5. KATHURBHA RAJAN, W/O. C.M.RAJAN, AGED 39 YEARS, DO. DO.

¶18

6. RASHEED RAUTHER, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KATCHERI AMSOM KURUMBRAKATTUSSERY DESOM OF KOZHIKODE.

¶19

C.R.P. NO. 1847/2002-D:

¶20

7. MULANGOTTU SAMUEL PETRE, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, KATCHERI AMSOM KURUMBRAKATTUSSERY DESOM OF KOZHIKODE.

¶21

8. K.SAHEEDA BEEVI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. HAJI K.ABDUL HAMEED, DO. DO.

¶22

9. PUTHIYAVEETTIL SHIRA, AGED 29 YEARS, VALANCHERRY AMSOM DESOM, THIRUR TALUK.

¶23

10. MRS.SHEMANA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. LATE DR.MUHAMMED.

¶24

11. SHEENA, D/O. SHEMANA, KACHERI AMSOM, KURUMBRAKATTUSSERY DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶25

12. SHIMU, D/O. SHEMANA, AGED 18 YEARS,

¶26

DO. DO.

¶27

13. BASHEER AHAMMED, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶28

14. NAZIR AHAMMED, DO. DO.

¶29

15. NISSAR AHAMMED, DO. DO.

¶30

16. P.MUHAMMED BEEGAM, DO. DO.

¶31

17. M.SHAHIRA BEEGAM, DO. DO.

¶32

R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI, R7 BY ADV. MR.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO, R9 BY ADV. MR.M.V.IBRAHIMKUTTY, R10 & R12 BY ADV. MR.E.S.M.KABEER, R14 & R15 BY ADVS. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN, SMT.SANIKA.V.S.

¶33

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

C.R.P. NO. 1847/2002-D:

¶35

ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 4581/2002 IN C.R.P. NO. 1847/2002-D

¶36

DISMISSED

¶37

04/11/2009.

¶38

SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶43

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.1847 of 2002

¶44

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4^th November, 2009

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.527 of 1995 on the

¶47

file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode against the order passed in I.A.No.2377 of 2002 moved by her for examining two doctors as her witnesses. The court below dismissed that application. At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one among the witnesses, namely, Dr.M.R.R.Menon, is now no more. Counsel submits that the petitioner seeks only to prove some documents which had already been produced and exhibited in evidence by examining the other doctor, namely, Dr.S.Santhakumar, under whom she has undergone treatment. During the pendency of the revision, it is submitted, after closing of the plaintiff's evidence, the evidence of the defendants has already commenced. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 7, 14 and 15 submit that the suit filed in 1995 still continues to be in file and an early disposal of the suit is essential to advance the ends of justice. Blanket permission to the plaintiff for examination of the witness and thus prolonging the case, it is submitted, in view of the fact that the suit has been filed

¶48

CRP No.1847/02 - 2 -

¶49

nearly one and half decade ago cannot be allowed is the further submission. Taking note of the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, I direct the court below to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to examine Dr.S.Santhakumar, the witness cited in the additional witness schedule for the purpose of proving the documents alone preferably by taking out a commission and also completion of such examination within the time limit fixed by the court provided the plaintiff moves an application before the court below within ten days from the date of this order. In case an application is moved by the petitioner as indicated above, summons to be issued to the witness by service by party, and handed over to the petitioner, for his examination. At any rate, the examination of the witness will be completed by the end of this month and thereafter the court below is directed to complete the proceedings and dispose the suit before the mid summer vacation. Revision is disposed as indicated above.

¶50

Handover a copy of the order to the counsel on both sides on usual terms and send a copy of the order to the concerned court.

¶51

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

srd

¶53

CRP No.1847/02 - 3 -

M.K.Ragini v. M.K.Mayavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Ragini v. M.K.Mayavathi

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

State of Kerala Vs K.T.Muhammedunni

Tomy Devasia Vs Babu Antony

Gopalakrishnan Vs Mathew Abraham and Another

George Joseph Vs Prasad Kumar

Cochin Export Processing Zone Vs M.T.J0LLY

K.S.E.Board Vs Padmanabhan