Dismissed

K.S. Nalinakshy v. N. Raju

Kerala HC19 Jan 2011OP(C)/189/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application seeking intervention under Order I Rule 8 CPC. The High Court upheld the lower court's rejection, noting the lack of factual foundation in the affidavit and an improper prayer limited to newspaper publication without a request to continue the suit in a representative capacity.

What did the court decide?

Application under Order I Rule 8 CPC dismissed; Original Petition dismissed.

K.S. Nalinakshy Vs N. Raju — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 189 of 2011(O) -----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3524/2010 IN OS.61/2004 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA ....................

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

¶6

K.S.NALINAKSHY, W/O.PADMANABHAN, PRAYIL, C.M.C.10, CHERTHALA EAST MURI, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA P.O.

¶7

M.N.REVAMMA, W/O.VASU, ARUNALAYAM, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHERTHALA

¶8

P.P.MOLLY, W/O.UDAYAKUMAR, PRAYIL, C.M.C. 10, CHERTHALA EAST MURI, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA P.O. 4. M.N.BINDU, W/O.GEETHA PRIYAN, GROUND FLOOR, OLD RAILWAY COLONY, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, PALGHAT - 2. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

K.RAJU, S/O.KUMARAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, CMC-XI, CHERTHALA - 688 524.

¶11

P.P.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.PADMANABHAN, P.B.NO.11049, A1-JUBAIL, SOUDI ARABIA - 31961.

¶12

M.N.BEENA, W/O.SETHU, PYANGATHOOR GOVT.U.P.S., KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 571.

¶13

PUSHPAVALLY, W/O.SURENDRAN, POLLECHIRAYIL, CMC - 10, CHERTHALA - 688 524.

¶14

O.P.(C) 189 OF 2011

¶15

-2-

¶16

SUNIL RAJ, S/O.SURENDRAN, POLLECHIRAYIL, CMC - 10, CHERTHALA - 688 524.

¶17

SUNITHA SURENDRAN, D/O.PUSHPAVALLY, POLLECHIRAYIL, CMC - 10, CHERTHALA - 688 524.

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶20

O.P.(Civil) No.189 of 2011 O

¶21

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2011

¶22

The petitioners challenge the order dated 19^th November, 2010 in O.S.No.61 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Principal Munsiff, Cherthala, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Rule 8 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the court below.

¶23

The suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondents for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction. In 2004, when the application for temporary injunction came up for hearing, the defendants contended in the counter that the property in question belongs to the family of the defendants which consists of several members and that all of them should be made parties to the suit. A

¶24

O.P.(Civil) No.189/2011

¶25

¶26

written statement was also filed raising the very same contentions. However, the plaintiffs did not file any application to implead the other members of the family. They also did not make an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. to continue the suit in a representative capacity, the defendants representing the other members of the family. The suit was dismissed for default on 2.7.2009. On 4.3.2010, the application filed by the petitioners for restoration of the suit was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present application under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. The court below held that the attempt of the petitioners is to protract the proceedings. It is seen from Exhibit P3 order that the suit was again dismissed for default. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application for restoration is pending.

¶27

The court below has stated cogent reasons for dismissing the application. I have gone through the

¶28

O.P.(Civil) No.189/2011

¶29

¶30

application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. No factual foundation is made in the affidavit for allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. There is not even a prayer that the defendants should represent the whole body of persons who are members of the family. The only prayer in the application is to permit the petitioners to make a newspaper publication. After considering all the relevant aspects, the court below dismissed the application. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below.

¶31

The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

K.T.SANKARAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

csl

K.S. Nalinakshy v. N. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S. Nalinakshy v. N. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kse Board Vs Vijayamma

Power Gird Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Sudhamani

M.C.Thomas Vs Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom and Ors.

Hydro-Tech,Mananging Partner Biju Jacob Vs the Govt. of the State of Kerala

E.P.K.Balakrishnan and Another Vs Jayaraman

Mathew and Another Vs the Range Officer,Marayoor and Another