Disposed

P.v.Madhavi Amma v. Kripa Babu

Kerala HC11 Oct 2012CRP/419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an interim order. It directed the lower court to decide the pending appeal within three months and ordered the petitioner to keep the pathway gate open for the respondent during the appeal's pendency.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order modified; Civil Revision Petition disposed of. Lower court directed to decide appeal within three months; petitioner directed to keep pathway gate open.

P.v.Madhavi Amma Vs Kripa Babu — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/19TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 419 of 2012 ()

¶6

IA.NO.680/2012 IN CMA.60/2012 of SUB COURT, KANNUR IA.NO.44/2012 IN OS.480/2011 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVIEW PETITIONERS:-:

¶8

P.V.MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS

¶9

W/O.NARAYANAN, "PUTHIYA VEEDU", P.O.MOTTAMMAL KANNAPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

SURESH,, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, "PUTHIYA VEEDU", P.O.MOTTAMMAL KANNAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:-:

¶13

KRIPA BABU,, AGED 46 YEARS W/O.RAMESH BABU, "GOPALA MANDIRAM", P.O.MELACHOVVA KANNUR-1 AMSOM, CHOVVA DESOM KANNUR TALUK - 670 006.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SHAMNA

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶17

C.R.P.No. 419 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

I heard Sri.P.U.Shailajan, Advocate on behalf of revision petitioners and Smt.N.Shamna, Advocate who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

An interim order passed pending Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against an order in an interlocutory application in a suit pending is under challenge. A detailed consideration of the evidence on record at this interlocutory stage would prejudice the contentions of either parties in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal pending. I therefore direct the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kannur to dispose of C.M.A.No.60 of 2012 on its file within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order untrammelled by the impugned order.

¶22

The petitioners/appellants are however directed to keep the gate leading to the pathway in question wide open without being locked during the pendency of the Civil

¶23

C.R.P.No.419/2012

¶24

¶25

Miscellaneous Appeal. This is to facilitate the respondent to have ingress and egress through the pathway without creating any right in her pending appeal.

¶26

The impugned order is modified accordingly and

¶27

the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶29

nj.

P.v.Madhavi Amma v. Kripa Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Madhavi Amma v. Kripa Babu

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

Hameed Rawther Vs Achudan Saradha

Ayisha Kutty Vs Suresh Babu

M/S.C.World Holidays India Private Limited Vs Mrs.Beena Zacharia

Velappan Vs Ayyappan Pillai

M.K. Pradeep Kumar Vs Pandara Valappil Sudhakaran

Biju Remesh Vs Sainudeen