The High Court of Kerala dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the Sub Court's dismissal of an amendment application. The Court refused to remand the case for fresh consideration after the underlying suit was dismissed for default nine years prior.
Revision petition dismissed; no remand ordered.
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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931
CRP.No. 1946 of 2000(A)
----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/06/2000 IN IA. 389 /2000 IN OS.84/1997 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:PLAINTIFF:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MIDLAND RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO.LTD., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. MR.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS AND ADDL.DEFENDANTS:
2. ABRAHAM @ KUNJUMON, AGED 48, S/O.ISSAC KOCHOLICKAL, VALLAKKADAVU, KARUPPUPALAM, CHAPPATHU, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE.
3. APPACHAN, AGED 50, S/O.PAPPU, PLAVANAMKUZHI HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALLAI VILLAGE.
4. PAPPACHAN, AGED 40, S/O.ISSAC, KOCHOLICKAL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE.
5. THAMPY, AGED 40, S/O.KUTTY, ALATHARAYIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE.
6. SURENDRAN, AGED 45, S/O.ACHUTHAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE.
7. MOHANAN, AGED 35, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MODIYIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE.
Kss
..2/-
....2.....
C.R.P.NO.1946/2000
8. PONRAJ, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MODIYIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
9. RAVI, AGED 30, S/O. AYYAPPKONAR, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
10. SURESH, AGED 30, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PUNHAPARAMBIL, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
11. KARUPPAMMA, AGED 45, W/O. KANTHAPPAKONAR, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
12. ANNAMALAI THEVAR, AGED 53, HOUSE NO.V.P.X/17, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALLAI VILLAGE.
13. SHAJI, AGED 27, S/O.APPACHANKUTTY, KOTHRAPPILLIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
14. JYOTHI, AGED 30, S/O.CHAPPANI, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
15. SURENDRAN, AGED 45, S/O.ACHUTHAN, PULLICKAL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALLY VILLAGE.
16. OUSEPH, AGED 45, KOTHRAPPILLIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
17. MONY, AGED 40, S/O.CHAPPANI, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
18. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 40, S/O.KAMMUKUTTY, MUTTIYIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM.
19. AYYAPPAN, AGED 28, S/O.OLIVER, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
20. MOOSA, AGED 55, S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL, KARUPPUPALAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
Kss
..3/-
...3.....
CRP.NO.1946/2000
21. AMBROSE MESTHIRI, AGED 60, S/O.VAIDYANATHAN, KARUPPUPALAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANUMALAI VILLAGE.
22. DURAIRAJ, AGED 50, S/O.SAMIDAS, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
23. SARAVANAN, AGED 45, S/O.VELU, HOUSE V.P.X/24, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
24. SEBASTIAN, AGED 30, KOTHRAPPALLY HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
25. BOSE, AGED 35, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUNJAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
26. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 60, PUNJAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
27. RAMAIAH, AGED 50, S/O.IRULAPPAN, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
28. KUNJUMOHAMMED, AGED 60, S/O.KAMMUKUTTY, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
29. ABOOBAKER, AGED 34, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, ARNAKKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
30. V.K.RAJAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, VATTATHARAYIL HOUSE, ARNAKAL ATTORAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANUMALAI VILLAGE.
31. ABDUL KHADAR, S/O.HASSAN BAVA, KARUPPUPALAM, VANDIPERIYAR KARA, MANJUMALAI VILLAGE.
R2 TO R7, 10, 13 TO 25, 27 TO 29 BY ADV. MR.RAJU K.MATHEWS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
C.R.P. No. 1946 OF 2000
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009
O R D E R
The revision is directed against an order passed by the
learned Sub Judge, Kattappana, dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint moved by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Having regard to the long pendency of the revision, a report through the Registry was obtained as to whether the suit is still pending on the file of the court. Report received from the court below discloses the suit was dismissed for default as early as in 2000 and the petitioner/ plaintiff had moved an application for restoration of the suit. That petition is kept pending awaiting for the orders in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Mohanachandran Pillai Vs.
Ramachandran [1999 (3) KLT 704], urged that in view of the pendency of the revision, the petitioner is entitled to have a remand of the case for fresh consideration by the court below. I am not impressed by the submission of the counsel. The facts involved in the reported case relied by the counsel would show
CRP.1946/00
: 2 :
that a suit was dismissed for the sole reason a document produced on which the suit claim rested was found inadmissible. The revision in that case was directed against the order passed holding that the document was inadmissible. In that view of the matter, this court expressed the view that once the finding entered on inadmissibility of the document is found unsustainable the suit has to be restored to file and disposed on merits. That is not the case here. Revision is directed against the dismissal of an amendment application moved by the plaintiff. Suit was later dismissed and a petition moved to restore the suit was also dismissed nearly nine years ago. Still the revision is retained on the file of this court, probably, as an experimental venture to see whether the order passed by the court below could be reversed and then get the suit restored to file. The revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed.
Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge
CRP.1946/00
: 3 :
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
C.R.P. No. 1946 OF 2000
O R D E R
1st day of July, 2009
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should remand a dismissed civil suit to the court below for fresh consideration of the restoration application, given the long pendency of a revision directed against the dismis
Whether a revision served as an experimental venture to reverse the amendment dismissal and subsequently restore the dismissed suit has merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohanachandran Pillai Vs. RamachandranDistinguished¶61
Mohanachandran Pillai Vs. Ramachandran [1999 (3) KLT 704]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd., Alappuzha
Appachen, S/o Joseph Chacko
Abraham @ Kunjumon
Ambrose Mesthiri
S.S. Satheesachandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.S. Satheesachandra
Parties & counsel
