Dismissed

K.K. Rajeevan v. T.V. Gangadharan

Kerala HC11 Nov 2009CRP/812/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismisses a civil revision petition seeking to challenge an appellate court's order allowing amendment of a decree to bind additional defendants, reserving their right to contest said amendment in an already filed second appeal.

What did the court decide?

Revision closed without prejudice; petitioners reserved right to challenge the amended decree order in the pending second appeal.

K.K. Rajeevan Vs T.V. Gangadharan — Execution and Attachment | 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 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

CRP.No. 812 of 2007

¶6

----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA .NO.3017/2005 IN AS.NO.6/2002 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 10:

¶8

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

¶9

1. K.K.RAJEEVAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KAYANI DESOM.

¶10

2. C.K.DHARMARAJAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 40 YEARS, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KAYANI DESOM.

¶11

3. K.P.SATHYAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY PANIKKAR, AGED 39 YEARS, -DO-

¶12

4. V.MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, -DO-

¶13

5. K.MOHANAN, S/O.KUNHUNDAN, AGED 36 YEARS, -DO-

¶14

6. V.MANOHARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, -DO-

¶15

7. C.PADMANABHAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, AGED 38 YEARS, -DO-

¶16

8. C.GANGADHARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 43 YEARS, -DO-

¶17

C.R.P. NO. 812/2007:

¶18

9. K.RAMESHAN, S/O.K.BALAN, AGED 35 YEARS, -DO-

¶19

BY ADVS. MR.K.V.PAVITHRAN, MR.M.P.JAYANANDAN.

¶20

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER-APPELLANT & IST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶21

1. T.V.GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR,

¶22

S/O.SANKARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 70 YEARS, PENSIONER, PAZHASSI AMSOM, KAYANI DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶23

2. THE SECRETARY, JNANODHAYAM VAYANASALA, PAZHASSI AMSOM KAYANI DESOM, P.O.KAYANI, THALASSERI TALUK.

¶24

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON, MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR.

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P. NO. 812/2007:

¶27

ORDER ON I.A. NO. 3053/2009 IN C.R.P. NO.812/2007-E

¶28

DISMISSED

¶29

11/11/2009.

¶30

SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶35

C.R.P.No.812 of 2007 - E

¶36

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2009

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Revision petitioners are the additional defendants 2 to 10 in O.S.No.206 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparambu. Revision is directed against the order dated 23.5.2007 in I.A.No.3017 of 2005 in A.S.No.6 of 20052 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thalassery. Suit was one for eviction with damages and the first respondent was the plaintiff. Suit was originally filed against the second respondent as the sole defendant. But, later, revision petitioners were impleaded as additional defendants 2 to 10 in the suit. Suit after trial was decreed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff granting recovery alone, but, not the claim of damages. The plaintiff and also the defendants filed separate appeals to the extent they were aggrieved by the decision of the trial court. Appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed for non-prosecution and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed granting a decree for damages also. In execution, recovery of the property

¶39

C.R.P.No.812 of 2007 - E

¶40

¶41

was taken. But when execution of the claim for damages was proceeded, defendants/judgment debtors raised objection that the decree passed by the court and also as approved by the first appellate court was confined only to the sole defendant who alone was present when the suit was instituted. The execution petition was dismissed. Pursuant thereto, plaintiff moved an application for amending the decree before the appellate court seeking a correction that the decree is binding all the defendants including the additional defendants. Though the application was opposed by the additional defendants the appellate court, after hearing both sides, allowed the amendment sought for vide the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.

¶42

At the time of hearing, it is submitted that as against the decree passed in A.S.No.6 of 2002 by the first appellate court, the revision petitioners/additional defendants 2 to 10 have preferred a second appeal with a petition to condone delay. According to the counsel for the first respondent such appeal has been preferred against the decree as amended by the order

¶43

C.R.P.No.812 of 2007 - E

¶44

¶45

impugned in the present revision. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 2 to 10 submitted that the revision may be disposed reserving their right to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the appellate court in the second appeal which has already been filed before this Court. First respondent has no objection to the request made by the petitioners. Reserving the right of the revision petitioners/respondents to canvass the correctness of the amendment to the decree allowed under the impugned order by the court below in the second appeal which is stated to have been preferred by them, the revision is closed.

¶46

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶47

bkn/-

K.K. Rajeevan v. T.V. Gangadharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K. Rajeevan v. T.V. Gangadharan

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

Kunjan Sivaraman Vs Mariamma Joseph and Others

Mohanan Vs Abdul Salam

Babu Vs Anirudhan

K.Chathu Vs a.Kabeerdas & Others

Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vasanthakumari Vs Raichal Banitta