Allowed

R. Kamalan Nair v. a. Sureshkumar

Kerala HC4 Oct 2012OP(C)/2319/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original civil petition challenging an election, the High Court of Kerala allowed an application to reopen evidence. The court directed defendants to examine the Returning Officer and two office bearers, conditioned on the payment of Rs. 10,000 costs to the respondent's counsel.

What did the court decide?

Allowed I.A No.4942/2012 to reopen evidence to examine the Returning Officer and two office bearers of the State Association, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 costs.

R. Kamalan Nair Vs a. Sureshkumar — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 2319 of 2012 (O)

¶6

-------------------------.NO./ IN OS.810/2009 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. R. KOMALAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS LIVA, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695581.

¶9

2. THIRUVALLAM SHIVARAJAN NAMITHA NIVAS, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695522.

¶10

3. R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SASTHAVILAKOM SSRA-1, THIRUVALLAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695027.

¶11

4. M.S.ANILKUMAR POOVACHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695575.

¶12

5. M.V.RAVEENDRAN PRESENT VICE PRESIDENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION.

¶13

6. V.A.RAHIM PRESENT JOINT SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION.

¶14

7. GIRIJA PRESENT JOINT SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

1. A. SURESHKUMAR

¶18

S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, “SARANYA” (KALPAKA) MANKUZHY, PANGAPPARA P.O., KARIYAVATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695581.

¶19

OP(C).No. 2319 of 2012 (O)

¶20

-2-

¶21

2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT VOLLEY BALL ASSOCIATION SASTHAM VILAKATHE VEEDU, THIRUVALLAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN 695027.

¶22

3. JAYSAMMA MUTHEDAM VYDYUTHY BHAVAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶23

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN

¶24

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT-P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.810/2009 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P2. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN EXT.P1 PLAINT.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P3. COPY OF IA NO.4785/2012 IN O.S.NO.810/2009 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P4. COPY OF I.A.NO.4942/2012 IN O.S.NO.810/2009 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P4(a).OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4 I.A. EXHIBIT-P5. COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.7.2012 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P. A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶38

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶39

O.P.(C) No. 2319 of 2012

¶40

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2012

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

The suit is filed challenging the election conducted to the first defendant Association on 11-4-2009. The first defendant is Thiruvananthapuram District Volleyball Association. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the Vice President of the first defendant Association was examined as DW1. The plaintiff wanted to examine the Returning Officer and two office bearers of the State Association as well.

¶43

It is under the auspices of the State Volleyball Association was the election conducted. The court below closed the evidence on the ground that the steps for issuing the warrant were not promptly taken. The defendants contended that they are not guilty of any sort. The defendant filed an application to reopen the evidence. The same has been dismissed by the court below by the order impugned.

¶44

I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the defendants to examine the Returning Officer and the two office

¶45

O.P.(C) No. 2319 of 2012

¶46

¶47

bearers of the State Association as sought. After all the suit has to be disposed of on merits after affording to the parties the full opportunity to adduce evidence.

¶48

I.A No.4942/2012 in O.S No.810/2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram is allowed. This is subject to the condition that the defendants / petitioners pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the Counsel for the respondent in this original petition within three weeks. The order impugned will remain intact in case the costs as directed above is not paid.

¶49

The Original Petition (Civil) is allowed. No costs.

¶50

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶51

smm

¶52

O.P.(C) No. 2319 of 2012 3

R. Kamalan Nair v. a. Sureshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Kamalan Nair v. a. Sureshkumar

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

State Bank of India,Kattappana Vs Chellappa,S/O.Late Rajamani Pillai

Rathan Vs Radha

Chandran Vs Saraswathy

Padma Ranjith Vs P.B.Venu

Pankajakshiyamma Vs Gowrikuttiyamma

Dr.Jose J.Thaliyath Vs Bhava Madanmohan Singh @ Sunil Bhava