Kunhi Mon v. Leela
Case brief
What is this about?
This civil revision petition was allowed. The court held that an order passed by the vacation court recording an undertaking should be treated as an ad interim order rather than a final order, directing the trial court to pass final orders after hearing both parties.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order treated as ad interim; order directed trial court to pass final orders after hearing both parties.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932
CRP.No. 320 of 2010()
--------------------IA.1654/2010 IN O.S.NO.278/2010 OF SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA
REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
KUNHIMON, S/O.MATHILAKATHVEETTIL IBRAHIM, MOOTHEDATHARA DESOM, THANNIAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
- LEELA, W/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN, METHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALORE TALUK.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a vacation court can pass a final order on an interlocutory application for attachment before judgment when an undertaking was recorded?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
KUNHIMON, S/O.MATHILAKATHVEETTIL IBRAHIM
- respondent
LEELA, W/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN
- respondent
PRABHADHAKUSUMAM, D/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN
- respondent
JAYASOONAM, D/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN
- respondent
KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court