Dismissed

Gopinathan v. Sree Durga Bhagavathikavu Trust

Kerala HC30 Nov 2012CRP/681/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging the setting aside of an ex-parte decree in a temple management suit. The High Court found no jurisdictional error and dismissed the petition, directing final disposal of the suit before summer recess.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed without costs. The Additional Munsiff was directed to dispose of the suit before summer recess 2013.

Gopinathan Vs Sree Durga Bhagavathikavu Trust — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 681 of 2009 ( )

¶6

----------------------I.A. NOS. 1767 & 1769 OF 2004 IN OS.1006/1998 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER NO.1 IN I.AS.:

¶8

GOPINATHAN,S/O.VASAVAN, CHENNANATTU HOUSE PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHIKAVU TRUST, VELLAKKAVU VELI,PATTANAKKAD,REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT,HARI,S/O.PALANISWAMY VELIKKAKATHU, PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE CHERTHALA.

¶12

VINOD,S/O.KRISHNAN, PULIMPARAMBU HOUSE, OF DO. DO. DO.

¶13

MADHAVI,W/O.VASAVAN, CHENNANATTU HOUSE, PATTANAKKADU MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE,CHERTHALA.

¶14

K.B.BABU,S/O.BHASKJARA THANDAR, KUTHANEZHATHUCHIRAYIL, UZHUVA MURI,CHERTHALA.

¶15

RAVEENDRANATH,S/O.KESAVAN, SREEVILASAM, PATTANAKKAD MURI, PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE,CHERTHALA.

¶16

CRP NO. 681/2009

¶17

PRASAD @ KOCHU,S/O.KUMARAN, PULIMPARAMBIL IN DO DO. DO.

¶18

BABY,S/O.KUMARAN, VIJAYALAYAM, IN DO. DO.

¶19

PONNAMMA ALIAS PONNU,W/O.SADASIVAN, ARACKAL,HOUSE,MARARIKKULAM.

¶20

KARTHIKEYAN ALIAS THANKAPPAN,S/O.VASAVAN CHENNANATTU HOUSE, DO.MURI, DO. VILLAGE.

¶21

KAMALAMMA ALIAS KARUTHAMMA, VINUSADANAM,NEAR KAINAKARY JETTY,ALAPPUZHA DIST.

¶22

SARASAMMA ALIAS PONNAMMA,W/O.ANIRUDHAN, PUNNACKAL PARAMBIL,THAICKAL,CHERTHALA.

¶23

SUBHA,W/O.KANNAN,UNDACHAM HOUSE, KALAVOOR.PO,MANNANCHERRY VILLAGE,AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA.

¶24

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN R8-12 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR

¶25

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶27

C.R.P. NO. 681 OF 2009

¶28

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2012

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The court below has by the orders impugned allowed the application for impleading and set aside the ex-parte decree in a suit for declaration and consequential injunction. The suit is in relation to the management of a temple and its property and is filed in a representative capacity. The suit was decreed ex-parte even though the plaintiffs did not succeed in securing a favourable order in the application for temporary injunction.

¶31

The specific case of the impleading petitioners is that the defendants have colluded with the plaintiff resulting in the ex-parte decree. The adverse decree passed ex-parte even though the plaintiffs did not secure a favourable order in the application for temporary injunction is highlighted. The further fact that criminal cases were compounded even though there was no necessity for the same is the other reason pointed out by the impleading petitioners.

¶32

The court below has noticed that the impleading petitioners have sufficient interest in order to maintain an

¶33

¶34

C.R.P. No. 681/2009

¶35

application to set aside the ex-parte decree. Such an impleading petition was necessary since the office bearers of Sree Durga Bhagavathikavu Trust changed in course of time. The court below has only reopened the decree to enable the parties to contest the suit on merits taking note of the fact that the dispute relates to the administration of a temple and its property.

¶36

I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below in setting aside the ex-parte decree on payment of costs to the plaintiffs. The orders suffer from no error of jurisdiction as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court of the Additional Munsiff of Cherthala is however directed to dispose of O.S. No. 1006/1998 finally before the court closes for summer recess in the year 2013.

¶37

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶38

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶39

ncd

Gopinathan v. Sree Durga Bhagavathikavu Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinathan v. Sree Durga Bhagavathikavu Trust

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

K.S.Sauda Beevi Vs Subaida Pareeth

State of Kerala Vs K.Padmanabhan

S. Saraswathy Vs P.N. Jayaram

Jessy Vs Kuriakose @ Uthuppu

Nita Gelatin India Limited Vs Ravi

James Chennattu Vs Vekkechalil Mathew