Disposed

Francis Kidangan v. Chief Manager, South Indian Bank

Kerala HC4 Apr 2012OP(C)/1261/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Petition seeks a direction for the immediate issuance of a certified copy of an order dismissing an interim injunction application filed by the petitioner against bank respondents and a mortgagor. The commercial court, Thissur. The petitioner sought the order copy to challenge the dismissal, as the respondents facing eviction threats. The court directed the Munsiff to issue the copy

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.03.2012 on I.A. No.3048 of 2012 to be issued by the learned Munsiff on or before 12.04.2012.

Francis Kidangan Vs Chief Manager, South Indian Bank — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/15TH CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

OP(C).NO. 1261 OF 2012 ()

¶6

I.A. NO.3048 OF 2012 IN OS.975/2012 OF THE THE THIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

FRANCIS KIDANGAN, S/O.CHUMAR, KIDANGAN HOUSE, HOUSE NO.26/1429, ANCHERI P.O, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH SMT.JAISNA MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. CHIEF MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, EAST FORT BRANCH, THRISSUR.

¶12

2. SOUTH INDIAN BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR.

¶13

3. ROSAMMA VARKEY, W/O.LATE P.I. VARKEY ALAPPAT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, VARKEY BHAVAN, LOURDPURAM, THRISSUR - 680 005.

¶14

BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE SC, SOUTH INDIAN BANK

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P(C) NO.1261 OF 2012

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.3048 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.975 OF 2012.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A. NO.3048 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.975 OF 2012 DATED 22.3.2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 IN I.A. NO.3048 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.975 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE THIRD IN I.A. NO.3048 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.975 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR.

¶23

EXHIHBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CARBON COPY FILED BY THE PETITONER IN I.A. NO.3048 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.975 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶27

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶28

==================================== O.P(C) No.1261 of 2012

¶29

==================================== Dated this the 04^th day of April, 2012

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This Original Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.975 of 2012 of the court of learned Third Additional Munsiff, Thrissur for a direction to the learned Munsiff to issue certified/carbon copy of order dated 29.03.2012 on I.A. No.3048 of 2012 in O.S. No.975 of 2012 of that court and in the meantime to direct the respondents not to evict petitioner forcibly from plaint schedule building.

¶32

According to the petitioner, he is a tenant of the building described in the plaint schedule since 14.03.2007 and while so, that building was subjected to a mortgage by the third respondent, its owner, in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Respondents are taking steps to evict petitioner forcibly from the building. Hence the suit. Petitioner filed I.A. No.3048 of 2012 for an order of temporary injunction. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Petitioner has applied for copy of the order but it is not so far issued and in the meantime, respondents 1 and 2 are taking steps to evict petitioner forcibly. Learned counsel for petitioner requested that a direction may be issued as

¶33

O.P(C) No.1261 of 2012

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

prayed for.

¶36

Respondents 1 and 2 contended in the court below that on the 3rd respondent failing to clear the liability, they proceeded under the provisions of SURFAESI Act and an order was obtained from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur on C.M.P. No.1599 of 2012 under Section 14 of the SURFAESI Act and accordingly symbolic possession of the property has already been taken by the first respondent on 29.02.2012. It is also stated that during that time, 3^rd respondent and her son were residing in the said building.

¶37

Learned counsel has invited my attention to the report of the Advocate Commissioner which states about inhabitance in the building in question.

¶38

Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to issue a direction to the learned Munsiff to issue certified/carbon copy of the order dated 29.03.2012 on I.A. No.3048 of 2012 as early as possible and at any rate, on or before 12.04.2012. Petitioner can move the learned

¶39

O.P(C) No.1261 of 2012

¶40

-: 3 :-

¶41

Munsiff/vacation court for appropriate interim orders as circumstances warranted until petitioner challenge the order dated 29.03.2012.

¶42

Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶44

vsv

Francis Kidangan v. Chief Manager, South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Kidangan v. Chief Manager, South Indian Bank

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

Chathoth Mosa Haji Vs Nedumpurath Meethal Hamsa Haji

Subramanian Vs Vasu

Edward Sirling Vs Gracy

Star Health & Allied Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Abraham George

Indiramma Vs Manoharan

Samuel, S/O.Yohannan Vs Art Leasing Limited