Allowed

Sudhakaran & Anr. v. Sree Dhathan & Ors.

Kerala HC11 Feb 2010WP(C)/3166/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcotta, to expedite hearing of an application for temporary injunction in a partition suit and pass final orders within three weeks, addressing alleged inaction and prejudice caused to petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Directed Munsiff Court, Sasthamcotta to take up I.A. No. 961 of 2009 and pass final orders in I.A. No. 475 of 2009 expeditiously within three weeks.

Sudhakaran & Anr. Vs Sree Dhathan & Ors. — Partition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 3166 of 2010(O)

¶6

IA 961/2009 IN OS.126/2009 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2:-

¶8

SUDHAKRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, CHANGAYATHU PADINJATTATHIL, KIZHAKKE MURI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

SUDHAMONY, D/O.GOURRI, AGED 48 YEARS, NARAYANA VILASATHU VEEDU, VADAKKE KANAYI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE FROM CHANGAYATTU PADINJATTATHIL, KIZHAKKE MURI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 3 TO 6:-

¶12

SREE DATHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, PRESIDENT & STATE ORGANISER SREE NARAYAN PRARTHANA SAMITHY, REG.NO.319/2000 NELIYAVILA, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶13

KOCHALI GAURI, CHANGAYATH VEEDU, KIZHAKKEMUTI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE.

¶14

GOVINDAN SADANANDAN, CHANGAYATH VEEDU, KIZHAKKEMUTI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE.

¶15

GOVINDAN DEVARAJAN, CHANGAYATH VEEDU, KIZHAKKEMUTI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE.

¶16

GOVINDAN JAGADAMMA, CHANGAYATH VEEDU, KIZHAKKEMUTI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 3166 of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2010.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 210 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta. The said suit is one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share over certain items of immovable properties. The 1^st respondent herein who is the additional 6^th defendant in the suit purchased 1/7 share of the 1^st defendant Pankajakshi. While so, the 1^st respondent herein filed O.S. No. 126 of 2009 before the Vacation Court, Kollam seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from causing any obstruction to the construction of building in the plaint schedule property. According to the petitioners, the 1^st respondent obtained Ext.P4 order of temporary injunction in I.A. No. 475 of 2009 without hearing the petitioners herein and defendants 2 to 5 in O.S. No. 210 of 1997. The grievance of the petitioners is

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 3166/2010 : 2 :

¶24

that under the cover of injunction, the 1^st respondent is encroaching into the suit properties and is committing acts of wastes including cutting of trees. The petitioners claim to have filed Ext.P5 petition as I.A. No. 961 of 2009 for vacating Ext.P4 order of injunction and even though the petitioners have been pressing for hearing the said petition, the court below is not finally hearing the application for temporary injunction to the extreme prejudice of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

¶25

This Court called for a report from the learned Munsiff. As per letter dated 05.02.2010, the learned Munsiff has submitted that the defendants have been asking for time for hearing the I.A and that the pressure of work in that court also is an additional factor for not being able to dispose of the petition and that after receipt of the communication from the High Court, he has suo motu advanced the case to 08.02.2010 for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even on 08.02.2010,

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 3166/2010 : 3 :

¶27

the case has been further adjourned. Apart from the statutory compulsion, when the respondents to an application for temporary injunction have pressed for an early hearing of the same, the court below had a duty to take up the application for temporary injunction and pass final orders. I.A. No. 961 of 2009 was only a remainder in that direction. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcotta to take up I.A. No. 961 of 2009 and pass final orders in I.A. No. 475 of 2009 expeditiously and at any rate within three weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there will be no request from the side of the petitioner for adjournment. The same is recorded.

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2010.

¶29

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 3166/2010 : 4 :

Sudhakaran & Anr. v. Sree Dhathan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakaran & Anr. v. Sree Dhathan & Ors.

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

Ambilidharan Nair Vs Sahadevan Nair

T.Ramachandran Nair Vs T.Kumaran Nair and Another

Manojkumr K. Vs President Cochin Devaswom Board

Ganga Prasad Vs G.Appukuttan Nair and 2 Others

Thomas Joseph Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.J.Joseph Vs C.J.George