Baby v. Eliakutty
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the underlying suit within six months, ignoring imputed interim stay orders, due to lack of respondent appearance. A detailed evidence analysis was deemed impermissible at this stage.
What did the court decide?
Directing the Munsiff of Aluva to dispose of O.S. No. 112/2011 within six months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934
OP(C).No. 2549 of 2012 (O)
CMA.18/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR OS.112/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA
PETITIONER(S)/(RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF):
BABY, AGED 61 YEARS W/O.JOY, EDASSERY HOUSE KANJOOR P.O, KANJOOR KARA, VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK,PIN - 683575.
BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR
RESPONDENT(S)/(APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS):
- ELIAKUTTY AGED 66, W/O.THOMAKUTTY, MAREKKADAN HOUSE KANJOOR P.O., KANJOOR KARA, VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE ALUVATALUK 683575.
- SIJO THOMAS
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammeled by staying orders.
Whether the trial court should be directed to consider evidence at this interlocutory stage: excerpt.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Baby
- respondent
Eliakutty
- respondent
Sijo Thomas
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court