Allowed

Kunnathparambil Justine v. Manjapallil Mathew & Others

Kerala HC9 Jul 2009WP(C)/4724/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging orders dismissing the plaintiff's applications for amendment of plaint and impleadment in a specific performance suit. The court set aside the orders and directed the trial court to reconsider the applications.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; direction to trial court to consider applications for impleadment and amendment.

Kunnathparambil Justine Vs Manjapallil Mathew & Others — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 4724 of 2009(K)

¶5

------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2009 IN IA. 527 /2009 IN OS.109/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY

¶6

PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF:

¶7

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

¶8

KUNNATHPARAMBIL JUSTINE, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, THAYINERI DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS. MR.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, MR.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. MANJAPALLIL MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 64 YEARS, KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM, (PO) KOLAKKAD, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶13

2. MARY MATHEW, W/O.MANJAPALLIL MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS, KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM, (PO) KOLAKKAD, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶14

3. JOSE MATHEW, S/O.MANJAPALLIL MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS, KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM, (PO) KOLAKKAD, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶15

R1-R3 BY ADVS. MR.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY, MR.ANIL GEORGE.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.4724/2009 K

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 22/03/2008 IN O.S.NO.109/08 ON THE FILE OF ADL.SUB JUDGE THALASSERY.

¶22

P2: THE DRAFT ISSUE SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

¶23

P3: THE ORDER OF THE TRAIL COURT FROM 'B' DAIRY PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.109/08 DTD. 12/12/08 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THALASSERY.

¶24

P4: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 23/01/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P5: COPY OF THE I.A.527/09 IN O.S.109/08 DTD. 3/02/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P6: COPY OF THE I.A.529/09 IN O.S.109/08 DTD. 3/02/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P7: COPY OF THE I.A.530/09 IN O.S.109/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 3/02/98.

¶28

P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5/02/2009 IN WPC.NO.3924/09 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶29

P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7/02/09 IN I.A.527/09 IN O.S.109/08 OF THE ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 4724 OF 2009 K

¶36

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2009

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has filed this writ petition impeaching the correctness of the orders passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thalassery disallowing his application for amendment of the plaint and for impleadment of an additional party in the suit. Ext.P9 is the copy of that order. The respondent, who is the defendant in the suit, in his written statement, among other contentions, contended that a portion of the suit property had already been sold to another and he was a necessary party to the suit. It was for impleadment of that person the plaintiff moved the two applications before the court. However, both of them were dismissed. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the eve of the case scheduled for trial on 9.2.09, a few days before, the plaintiff had moved a petition before this court for an expeditious consideration of the above petitions by the court before commencement of trial of the suit.

¶39

This court by judgment dated 5.2.2009 disposed the petition directing the court below to adjourn if it is practicable or feasible the trial fixed on 9.2.2009 to consider the applications moved by

¶40

WPC.4724/09

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff could not get a copy of the judgment, he could not produce it before the court below and that ultimately resulted in dismissal of the petitions, is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent in the writ petition fairly submitted that he is not standing on technical objections in allowing the application though there was inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff in moving the amendment application despite the particulars of the purchaser to whom portion of the property was sold was stated in the written statement. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the directions issued by this court in the previous writ petition, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8, I find Ext.P9 impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside and I do so. The court below is directed to consider the applications for impleadment and also the amendment with reference to the directions given by this court in Ext.P8 judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed as above.

¶44

Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶45

aks

Kunnathparambil Justine v. Manjapallil Mathew & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunnathparambil Justine v. Manjapallil Mathew & Others

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

Aravindakshan Vs Kalavathi

Rajappan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

J.Retnamuthu Vs a.S.Sajikumar

Shiny Varghese Vs Shaji

Remya.P.Nair Vs Vinod.N.Nair

L.C.Chandralekha Vs Anirudhan