Dismissed

Jose K.J. v. Kathreena @ Jaissamma

Kerala HC22 Oct 2009WP(C)/29816/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged non-supply of an interlocutory order copy and delay in a joint trial application. The court found the petition was an attempt to evade trial responsibilities on posted date. Petition dismissed but order copy supply and joint application disposal directed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to supply copy of order in I.A.No.668/09 within seven days; joint trial application to be disposed of before trial.

Jose K.J. Vs Kathreena @ Jaissamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 29816 of 2009(R) -------------------------I.A.No.668/09 IN OP.274/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM ....................

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

JOSE K.J, S/O.JOSEPH, KOLLASSERIL HOUSE CHALAPARAMBU HOUSE, NADUVILE VILLAGE,VAIKOM PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

¶11

KATHREENA @ JAISSAMMA AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. SEBASTIAN, VETTIKKAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KADAPPLAMATTOM, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND GUARDIAN RAJU SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, VETTIKKAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KADAPPLAMATTOM, MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶14

-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.29816 OF 2009 R

¶15

----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Basant, J.

¶18

The short grievance of the petitioner is that I.A.No.668/09 in O.P.No.274/2009 was filed by him before the Family Court and no orders were passed in the said application, to his knowledge. He came to know that some orders have been passed on 19.9.2009. He has applied for a copy on 20.10.2009. Copy has not been furnished to him. He has a further grievance that he has filed an application for joint trial of O.P.No.274/2009 and O.P.No.667/09. No orders have been passed thereon and the court is about to proceed with the trial of both these cases separately on 24.10.2009. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this Writ Petition.

¶19

We do not find any merit in the grievance of the petitioner. I.A.No.668/09, it appears, was filed as early as on 23.3.2009. It is not explained, why orders were not sought earlier. Further, it is seen that the order in that I.A., according to the petitioner was passed on 19.9.2009. It is not explained why

¶20

W.P.(C)No.29816/09

¶21

-2-

¶22

copy application was filed only on 20.10.2009. Both matters stand posted to 24.10.2009 for trial admittedly. It is not explained to the Court, on what date these matters were posted for trial to 24.10.2009. The parties have to get ready for trial on 24.10.2009 and on the eve of such date of trial, on 20.10.2009, an application for copy of the order in I.A.No.668/09 and a further application for joint trial is filed and a grievance is raised before this Court that copy has not been furnished and that no orders have been passed on the application for joint trial.

¶23

Reading between the lines, the impression is irresistible that the present one is only a transparent attempt to avoid the responsibility to get ready for trial on 24.10.2009. We do not in these circumstances find any merit in this Writ Petition. The same does not deserve to be admitted.

¶24

Needless to say, copy of the order in I.A.No.668/09 must be furnished to the petitioner by the court below as expeditiously as possible - at any rate within a period of seven days from this date, if a proper and emergent copy application has been filed. Needless, further to say that the application for

¶25

W.P.(C)No.29816/09

¶26

-3-

¶27

joint trial, though filed belatedly, must also be disposed of before the trial is commenced.

¶28

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is

¶29

dismissed.

¶30

R.BASANT, JUDGE.

¶31

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶32

dsn

Jose K.J. v. Kathreena @ Jaissamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose K.J. v. Kathreena @ Jaissamma

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

Abdul Jaseem & Others Vs Samama

Nabeesa Beevi Vs Shanifa @ Shania and Another

Sindhu K. Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Mathew Vs Santhamma John

T.P.Sudheesh Babu Vs Sherly.P.

Prabhu Vs C.I.of Police