Disposed

Joseph Pius v. Kumbalam Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC11 Sept 2012OP(C)/1004/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, while hearing online proceedings, directed the Munsiff Court of Ernakulam to consider specific interlocutory applications in an original suit filed by a Panchayat against Grama Sabhas within one month, ensuring they are ordered before the suit is listed for trial.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Munsiff Court of Ernakulam to consider Interlocutory Applications Nos. 2095/2012 and 2096/2012 in O.S. No. 1233/2010 within one month and pass orders before the suit is listed for tri

Joseph Pius Vs Kumbalam Grama Panchayat — 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

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/20TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 1004 of 2012 (O)

¶6

OS.1233/2010 of PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS-PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

1. JOSEPH PIUS, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.T.O.JOHN, RESIDING AT THATTASSERY HOUSE, NETTOOR DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. V.B.SUDHIR, S/O.BAHULEYAN, AGED 45 YEARS, VILAKKASSERY HOUSE, NETTOOR DESOM NETTOOR P.O., MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. JEEVAN LAL, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT AZHIKKAKATH HOUSE NETTOOR DESOM, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU VILLAGE KANAYANNUR THALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶12

SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER& RESOIBDEBTS & ADDL. DEFENDANTS 4 TO 7 DEFENDANTS :

¶14

1. KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT KUMBALAM P.O., KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMBALAM, KUMBALAM P.O., KUMBALAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

OP(C).No. 1004 of 2012 (O)

¶18

4. NAJEEB T.M., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.C.MAMMA, THUNDATHIL HOUE, MADAVANA, PANANGAD P.O. PIN-682506.

¶19

5. SAJEEVAN A.K., S/O.KUMARAN, ALATHIL HOUSE, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD P.O. PIN-682506.

¶20

6. ANTONY K.P., AGED 42, S/O.PATHROSE, KADAVILA VEETTIL, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU VIA. MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

7. PADMAJAN M.P., AGED 50, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KALLAYIL HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU VILLAGE ERNAKULAM.

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. LILLY K.T. BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA

¶23

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

OP(C).No. 1004 of 2012 (O)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶28

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. NO. 1822/2012 IN O.S. NO. 1233/2010 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. NO. 1823/2012 IN O.S. NO. 1233/2010 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. NO. 1824/2012 IN O.S. NO. 1233/2010 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/3/2012 IN I.A. NO. 1822/2012 IN O.S. NO. 1233/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/3/2012 IN I.A. NO. 1823/2012 IN O.S. NO. 1233/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/3/2012 IN I.A. NO. 1824/2012 IN O.S. NO. 1233/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO. 1233/2010.
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1233/2010.
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION – IA NO.2095/2010 IN O.S. 1233/2010.
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO.2096/2012 IN O.S.1233/2010.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶34

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶35

O.P (C) No.1004 of 2012

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2012

¶37

The only prayer pressed at the time of hearing is for an early consideration of two interlocutory applications seeking a direction to defendant Nos.3 and 2 to produce certain documents. The petitioner/first plaintiff contends that orders are to be passed on the interlocutory applications well before the suit is included in the list for trial

¶38

I direct the Court of the Munsiff of Ernakulam to consider I.A Nos.2095/2012 and 2096/2012 in O.S No.1233/2010 on its file within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same shall be considered and orders passed well in advance before the suit is included in the list for trial.

¶39

The Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of as above.

¶40

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶41

smm

¶42

¶43

Joseph Pius v. Kumbalam Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Pius v. Kumbalam Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhadev Vs Vazhakandy Ramu

Krishnakumari Vs Ananda Krishnan Embrandhiri

Joseph Philip Vs Kerala State Housing Board

C.Bini Vs Manju C.Bini

K.Gopalan Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Babu Thomas Chandy Vs State of Kerala