Allowed

James Thomas Edayanjilil v. the Regional Passport Officer

Kerala HC21 Jun 2011CRP/263/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the Kerala High Court addressed a Munsiff Court's dismissal of an application for leave to institute a suit challenging discrepancies in the petitioner's passport without issuing notice as required by Section 80 CPC. The Court held the lower court's view on lack of urgency was erroneous.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.5.2011 dismissing I.A. No.419/2011 set aside; Munsiff Court directed to consider application afresh within two weeks and pass final orders.

James Thomas Edayanjilil Vs the Regional… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 CRP.No. 263 of 2011() --------------------IA.419/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------------JAMES THOMAS, EDAYANJILIL @ JAMES E.T., AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF THOMAS, RESIDING AT POOZHICKAL HOUSE, FROM EDAYANJILIL, MARIYATHURUTHU P.O., PERUMBAIKKAD VILLAGE, MALLUSSERY KARA, CHUNGAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶2

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

¶3

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶4

¶5

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, COCHIN.

¶6

ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶7

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

CRP 263/2011

¶9

APPENDIX

¶10

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶11

CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.5.2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR IN I.A.NO.419/2011.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

C.R.P.No.263 of 2011

Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

In the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner stated the following facts: The petitioner is an Indian Passport holder. He works in Canada since 1974. He came to India in June 2010. The Immigration Officer pointed out the disparity in the date of birth as shown in the passport of the petitioner and the Canadian Permanent Resident Card. The petitioner states that his correct date of birth is 14.10.1950 and in the Permanent Resident Card of Canada, the date of birth is correctly entered. In the Indian Passport, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 9.10.1950. It is stated that in the S.S.L.C. Book also, the date of birth of the petitioner is correctly shown as 14.10.1950. The surname shown in the passport of the petitioner is not fully correct. He wanted correction of the same. The petitioner obtained a divorce and he remarried. The petitioner also wanted the name of his wife to be entered in the passport.

¶19

C.R.P.No.263/2011

¶20

¶21

It is stated that the petitioner has to return to Canada

¶22

in the first week of August, 2011. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an Original Suit before the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor for the following reliefs:

¶23

“A. To declare the date of birth of the plaintiff as on 14.10.1950.

¶24

B. To direct the defendant, the passport officer, Cochin to rectify the mistaken date of birth as 14.10.1950, the correction in spelling mistake in surname as 'i' instead of 'a' as the 8th letter of surname and finally to change the name of spouse as Anitha Kumari Joseph.

¶25

C. To order the defendant to pay the cost of the plaintiff if he is contesting the matter.”

¶26

The petitioner also filed I.A.No.419 of 2011 under Sub Section (2) of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for granting leave to institute the suit without serving notice to the defendant under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The

¶27

C.R.P.No.263/2011

¶28

¶29

court below dismissed I.A.No.419 of 2011 by the order dated 27^th

¶30

May, 2011. The order reads as follows:

¶31

“Heard the petitioner. I am satisfied that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit. Hence, plaint returned for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of Sub Section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C.”

¶32

The view taken by the court below that there is no urgency in the situation and that the suit is not for an urgent or immediate relief is erroneous. The purpose for which the reliefs are sought have been stated by the petitioner. Section 80 C.P.C. is intended to give the Government or the Public Officer sufficient notice of the case, proposed to be filed against it or him, so that the Government or the Officer may consider the case and decide it himself whether the claim of the plaintiff should be accepted. The object of the Section is the advancement of justice by avoiding some unnecessary litigations [ State of A.P. and others vs. Pioneer Builders. A.P. (2006(12) SCC 119)] even after granting the reliefs in the case.

¶33

C.R.P.No.263/2011

¶34

¶35

For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 27^th May, 2011 in I.A.No.419 of 2011 is set aside. The court below shall consider the application afresh within a period of two weeks from today and pass final orders therein.

¶36

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

K.T.SANKARAN

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

csl

James Thomas Edayanjilil v. the Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Thomas Edayanjilil v. the Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Vijayan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

The K.S.E.B Vs Joseph Abraham

Sasi Vs Hillvalley Corporation

Bineesh P.V. Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Radhakrishnan Vs S.I.

P.Peravakkutty Vs the Vijaya Bank