Dismissed

M.J. George v. Philomina George M.J.

Kerala HC19 Nov 2012CRP/457/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the closure of interlocutory applications and an ex parte dismissal in a civil suit, holding the District Court lacked jurisdiction post-Family Court establishment and finding no grounds for interference with the judgment.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without any order of the day.

M.J. George Vs Philomina George M.J. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/28TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶7

CRP.No. 457 of 2012 ()

¶8

(IA.NO.457/2012 IN OP.50/1974 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE)

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶10

M.J. GEORGE AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.M.M.JOHN, MATTATHIL HOUSE NENMENI AMSOM & DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK VAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

PHILOMINA GEORGE M.J. @ T.T.PHILOMINA, W/O.M.J.GEORGE, NENMENI VILLAGE & DESOM THOVARIMALA POST, SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK VAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673592.

¶14

MATHAI BABY,

¶15

AGED 65 YEARS, SEPOY, 106 INFANTRY BATTALION (TA)

¶16

MAHATHMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-1.

¶17

T.T.AUGUSTINE,

¶18

AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.T.A.THOMAS, THADATHIL HOUSE

¶19

NENMENI VILLAGE AND DESOM, THOVARIMALA POST

¶20

SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, VAYANAD DISTRICT

¶21

PIN-673592.

¶22

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

APPENDIX (CRP 457/2012)

¶24

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.457/2012.

¶25

ANNEXURE 2: THE ORIGINAL OF THE POST COVER RECEIVED BY THE COUNSEL ON 27.9.2012.

¶26

ANNEXURE 3: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF I.A. NO.457/2012 GRANTED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOZHIKODE AS PER ANNEXURE I APPLICATION THEREIN.

TRUE COPY

P.S. to Judge

pms

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................................... C.R.P. No.457 of 2012

¶31

.................................................................... Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2012.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶34

This C.R.P. is directed against order in I.A. No.457/2012 in I.A. No.915/2011 in O.P. No.50/1974. According to Mr.Lijoy Parackal Varghese, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I.A. No.915/2011 was an Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner who was the petitioner before the District Court, Kozhikode, seeking a direction to that court to pass judgment and decree in the O.P. after setting the respondents exparte for the reason that the respondents had not entered appearance notwithstanding the service of notice on them by publication in a local daily. I.A. No.457/2012, according to the learned counsel, was filed when it was noticed that the court was not passing any orders in I.A. No.915/2011.

¶35

We find that the court below has closed both the I.As. According to learned counsel, the court below observed while closing the I.As. that the petitioner should move the Family Court. We find that after the establishment of the Family Court at Kozhikode, the

¶36

C.R.P. 457/2012

¶37

¶38

District Court cannot have any jurisdiction over matters covered by Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. In that view of the matter, the observation, if any, made by the court below is correct. But on perusal of the records in M.F.A. No.170/1980 what we find is that O.P. No.50/1974 was finally disposed of by the District Court, Kozhikode after setting the respondents exparte. The order in that O.P. of course

¶39

is a cryptic one, but it cannot be said that the same is not a nonspeaking one. The order is to the following effect.

¶40

The petitioner (referring to the petitioner herein) who is PW1, refused to sign the deposition. He does not prove any one of the allegations made in the petition. Hence the petition dismissed.

¶41

This order as already narrated is passed by the learned District Judge after setting the respondents absent. In short, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the orders which are impugned in the C.R.P. C.R.P. is therefore dismissed.

¶42

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE Judge

¶43

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH Judge

¶44

pms

M.J. George v. Philomina George M.J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J. George v. Philomina George M.J.

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

Mathew Martin Vs Seena a.

Staby Vs Jiby

Skaria K.C. @ Chacko Skaria Vs Sofi Skaria

Ambily Vs State of Kerala

Y. Jacob Vs the Sub Injspector of Police

Vellanadu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 2379 Vs State Co-Operative Election Commission