This order quashed a lower court order granting permission for construction because the court below ignored a written objection filed by the petitioner. The High Court directed reconsideration on merits.
Impugned order dated 21.12.2011 set aside; Munsiff of Kayamkulam directed to reconsider application No. 2585/2011 on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934
OP(C).No. 277 of 2012 (O)
OS.171/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM
PETITIONER(S):
KURYAN P.KOSHY, S/O.P.K.KURYAN, RESIDING AT 37-1300 ROAD NO.53 KUMARANASAN NAGAR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
SMT.SABINA JAYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
ADDL.2. MADHAVAN, AGED 80, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, RESIDING AT KANNETHARAYIL, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM.
ADDL.3 BABU, AGED 53, S/O. MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT ARCHANA, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 06.02.2012 IN I.A. NO. 1887/2012 IN OP(C) NO. 277/2012.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 277/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 171/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN OS NO. 171/2011 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 247/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO. 247/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS NO. 1712011 DATED 16.06.2011. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.11.2011 IN OS NO. 171/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 02.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO. 2585/2011 IN OS NO. 171/2011. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 19.11.2011 IN OS NO. 171/2011. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2011 IN IA 2585/2011 IN OS 171/2011. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION CMA NO. 2/2012 DATED 28.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.01.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM IN OS NO. 247/2011. |
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
OP(C) NO. 277 OF 2012
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2012
JUDGMENT
The respondent/first plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2585/2011 in O.S. No. 171/2011 for permission to construct the eastern wall of the plaint 'B' schedule shop room with bricks and cement to support the building and to cover the ceiling of the said shop room. The petitioner/defendant had filed a detailed objection to I.A. No. 2585/2011 as early as on 02.12.2011 as evident by court fee No. 9353. But the court below has disposed of I.A. No. 2585/2011 on 21.12.2011 on the premise that 'no written objection is seen filed by the respondent/defendant'.
2
OP(C) No. 277/2012
below shall therefore make an endeavour to dispose of O.S. No. 171/2011 and the connected suit O.S. No. 247/2011 simultaneously and also expeditiously. The court below shall at any rate dispose of I.A. No. 2585/2011 afresh in case it is not possible to dispose of both the suits expeditiously as directed above. Needless to say that both the parties are also at liberty to adduce evidence on I.A. No. 2585/2011 filed by the respondent for permission to construct the eastern wall of the plaint 'B' schedule shop room.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE
ncd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court committed an error of law by disregarding a written objection filed by the petitioner against an interim application.
Kuryan P.Koshy
Smt. Sabina Jayan
M. Chandran
Madhavan
Babu
V. Chitambreesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
