Allowed

Sabukutty Joy v. E.P.Jayarajan

Kerala HC5 Sept 2013OP(C)/2589/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an application for joint trial. The court set aside the dismissal and remitted the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision, either to implead parties from the second suit or dispose of joint trial applications together.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A. remitted to trial court for fresh decision with opportunity to implead parties or dispose applications jointly.

Sabukutty Joy Vs E.P.Jayarajan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/14TH BHADRA, 1935 OP(C).No. 2589 of 2013 (O) --------------------------I.A.NO.777 OF 2013 IN O.S.NO.219 OF 2011

¶5

PETITIONER(S): --------------

¶6

SABUKUTTY JOY S/O. LATE JOY, PUTHUCHIRA HOUSE, VAIKAM MURI RANNI VILLAGE AND TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶8

1. E.P.JAYARAJAN PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF DESHABHIMANI DAILY C.H.KANARAN MEMORIAL PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD. CHUNGAM, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶9

2. V.V.DAKSHINAMOORTHY CHIEF EDITOR OF DESHABHIMANI DAILY C.H.KANARAN MEMORIAL PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD. CHUNGAM, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶10

3. M.J.VIJAYAPADMAN PUBLISHER OF MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. LTD. KOZHIKODE-673001

¶11

4. M.KESAVA MENON EDITOR OF MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. LTD. KOZHIKODE-673001

¶12

R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SHENOY R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R1,R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.SEENA

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C).No. 2589 of 2013 (O)

¶15

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 219/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS NO. 1 AND 2 IN OS.NO. 219/2011. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS NO.3 AND 4 IN OS NO.219/2011. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO. 228/2011 ON THE FILE OF SUBORDINATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN OS NO.228/2011.

¶20

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 777/2013 DATED 17-6-2013 IN OS NO. 219/2011. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO. 777/2013 IN O.S.NO. 219/2011. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4-7-2013 IN I.A.NO. 777/2013.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶22

True Copy

¶23

P.A to Judge

¶24

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶25

=========================

¶26

O.P(C).No.2589 of 2013

¶27

============================ Dated this the 05^th day of September, 2013

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Respondents appear through counsel.

¶30

This Original Petition is in challenge of Ext.P8, order dated 04.07.2013 on I.A.No.777 of 2013 in O.S.No.219 of 2011 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta.

¶31

Petitioner/plaintiff filed that suit for recovery of damages from the respondents for alleged label concerning the seizure of a vehicle belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.228 of 2011 in the same Court against the Government officials for damages for what the petitioner calls, illegal seizure of the same vehicle.

¶32

Petitioner wanted the above suits to be tried and disposed of jointly and filed I.A.No.777 of 2013 in O.S.No.219 of 2011 but, without impleading or giving notice to the defendants in O.S.No.228 of 2011. Learned Sub Judge dismissed that application on various grounds including that the defendants in the two suits are not the same and that notice to the defendants in O.S.No.228 of 2011 is not given.

¶33

O.P(C).No.2589 of 2013

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a separate application is filed in O.S.No.228 of 2011 for joint trial and that arguments on that application is completed. But, order has not been pronounced.

¶36

It was appropriate that either the defendants in O.S.No.228 of 2011 are also made parties in I.A.No.777 of 2013 or that separate applications filed in the two suits were disposed of by the learned Sub Judge simultaneously. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order and remand I.A.No.777 of 2013 to the trial court for fresh decision.

¶37

Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed as under:

¶38

(i) Ext.P8, order dated 04.07.2013 on I.A.No.777 of 2013 in O.S.No.219 of 2011 of the learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta is set aside.

¶39

(ii) I.A.No.777 of 2013 is remitted to the learned Sub Judge for fresh decision either along with the application for joint trial stated to be filed in O.S.No.228 of 2011 or after giving the petitioner opportunity to implead the defendants in O.S.No.228 of 2011 also as parties in I.A.No.777 of 2013.

¶40

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶43

Sbna

¶44

True Copy P.A to Judge

Sabukutty Joy v. E.P.Jayarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabukutty Joy v. E.P.Jayarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venugopalan Nair Vs Saraswathy Amma

Rathi Vs K.K.Ramu

Saneesh Babu Vs Winson P.V.

Neelakantan Nair Vs Indira Devi

Thomas,S/O.Baby Vs United India Insurance Co,Ltd.

Unnikrishnan Vs Latha Sasidharan