Disposed

Abisha v. Poozhithara Suresh

Kerala HC31 Jan 2012OP (FC)/299/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court heard an original petition by the petitioner in connected Family Court cases to reopen her evidence. Since the underlying original petitions were already dismissed by the Family Court, the High Court closed the present original petition without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer for reopening evidence is closed as the underlying petitions were already dismissed.

Abisha Vs Poozhithara Suresh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2012/11TH MAGHA,1933

¶6

OP(FC).No. 299 of 2012 (R)

¶7

OP.460/2011 & OP.461/2011 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

ABISHA AGED 24, D/O.LATE SIVARAMAN CHERUKUNNATH HOUSE MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1 POOZHITHARA SURESH AGED 38,S/O. CHANDRAN, POOZHIKKUNNTH HOUSE KOTTAKKAL P.O. PIN 676503

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-012012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OPFC.No. 299 of 2012 (R)

¶15

A P P E N D I X

¶16

Petitioner's Exhibits :

¶17

Ext.P1 : TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.460/11 DT. 10.6.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶18

Ext.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN O.P.NO.460/11 DT. 24.9.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶19

Ext.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE MESSENGER DT. 16.1.2012.

¶20

Ext.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE MESSENGER DT. 16.1.2012.

TGS

(TRUE COPY)

P.S. TO JUDGE.

K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶25

O.P.(F.C.) No.299 of 2012

¶26

Dated 31^st January, 2012.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶29

The Original Petition (Family Court) is filed mainly with the following prayer :-

¶30

“issue a direction to the Family Court, Kozhikode to reopen the evidence of the petitioner in O.P.460/2011 and O.P.461/2011 and may direct the court below to give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to procure the presence of the witnesses to examine on the side of the petitioner.”

¶31

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.Nos.460 and 461 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode, filed against the respondent for realization of money. The petitioner was examined and thereafter, she filed a witness list to examine six witnesses. The court issued warrant to two witnesses. The warrant could not be sent as the process paid by the petitioner was defective. The court below then closed the evidence on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, evidence was re-opened and notice by messenger was taken out to the witnesses. The messenger returned

¶32

O.P.(FC) 299/12

¶33

¶34

stating that the witnesses are in Malappuram and the petitioner did not co-operate with him for serving notice on the witnesses. Thereupon the court closed the evidence of the petitioner on 18.1.2012 and posted the case on 23.1.2012 for evidence of the respondent. The petitioner sought time for crossexamination of the respondent. The same was rejected by the court below and the matter was posted for final hearing on 25.1.2012.

¶35

When the matter came up before this Court on

¶36

30.1.2012, this Court sought information. It is stated in the report as follows :

¶37

“As directed, contacted the Family Court, Kozhikode. The Sheristadar, after verification, informed that the two Original Petitions (O.P.Nos.460/11 & 461/11) were posted for orders to 25.1.2012. When the matter was taken up on the morning, the counsel were not ready. The petitioner, thereafter, on 25.1.2012 itself filed an affidavit seeking to re-open the evidence. The case was posted for orders to 27.1.2012. Since 27.1.2012 was declared holiday, the Original Petitions were taken up today and both the cases were dismissed with costs.”

¶38

O.P.(FC) 299/12

¶39

¶40

Thereafter, we again sought information as to when the orders were pronounced. It was reported today that the petitions were dismissed during the morning session itself at about 11.30 a.m. on 30.1.2012. It is also stated that the petitioner filed an affidavit at 1.55 p.m. on 30.1.2012 and it was sent up after the dismissal of the Original Petitions. Whatever that may be, the fact remains that both the Original Petitions have been finally disposed of by the Family Court, as aforesaid. In such circumstances, we may not be justified in considering the prayer sought in this Original Petition. Therefore, we close the Original Petition (Family Court) without prejudice to all the remedies, which are available to the petitioner.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶45

tgs

¶46

(True copy) P.S. to Judge.

Abisha v. Poozhithara Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abisha v. Poozhithara Suresh

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

Manikkoth Aboobacker Vs Meethale Puthalath Naseema

Shafeek and Others Vs Hameena

T.Rajini Vs K.Purushothaman

Josemon, Rep.P.a.Holder, Yohannan Chacko Vs Raji

Wilson Vs Annie @ Sherly

Sreeja Vs Vijayan