Disposed

Sadanandhan v. Pankajakshi

Kerala HC1 Feb 2013OP(C)/263/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed a petition concerning a partition suit dismissed for default. The Court directed the trial judge to dispose of the restoration application promptly and extended an interim injunction against construction for three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to dispose of restoration application; interim injunction extended until 22.02.2013 or disposal; petitioner to undertake service of notice.

Sadanandhan Vs Pankajakshi — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/15TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 263 of 2013 (O) ------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS.949/1998 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT.,NEYYATTINKARA

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SADANANDHAN AGED 59 YEARS

¶8

ARUNA BHAVAN,THIRUPURAM POST,NEYYATTINKARA

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

PANKAJAKSHI MUNDANTHANNI VEEDU,THIRUPURAM DESOM THIRUPURAM PO THIRUPURAM VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 133.

¶12

SUDHEER, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR VARUVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU MURIANKARA DESOM MURIANKARA PO,PARASSALA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 502

¶13

CHITHRA, D/O.PANKAJAKSHAN MUNDANTHANNI VEEDU,THIRUPURAM DESOM THIRUPURAM PO THIRUPURAM VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 133.

¶14

SHEELA, D/O.PANKAJAKSHAN MUNDANTHANNI VEEDU,THIRUPURAM DESOM THIRUPURAM PO THIRUPURAM VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 133.

¶15

R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶16

R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.BIJIMON

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(C).No. 263 of 2013

¶19

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1 -	TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT,O.S.949/1998 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT NEYYATTINKARA DATED 20-11-98.
EXHIBIT-P2 -	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, I.A.4060/05 IN O.S.949/1998 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT NEYYATTINKARA
EXHIBIT-P3 -	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-10-05 IN I.A.4060/05 IN O.S.949/1998 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT NEYYATTINKARA
EXHIBIT-P4 -	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-10-2012 IN O.S.949/1998 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT NEYYATTINKARA
EXHIBIT-P5 -	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, I.A.6070/2012 IN O.S.949/1998 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT NEYYATTINKARA.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶23

True Copy

¶24

P.A to Judge

¶25

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =========================

¶26

O.P(C).No.263 of 2013

¶27

============================ Dated this the 04^th day of February, 2013

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Respondents appear through counsel.

¶30

Petitioner and others filed O.S.No.949 of 1998 in the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara for partition. That suit was resisted by the respondents on various grounds including that petitioners and other plaintiffs have no right over the property sought to be partitioned.

¶31

By Ext.P3, order respondents were restrained from constructing building, committing waste etc in the suit property. The suit was dismissed for default. Petitioner and other plaintiffs filed Ext.P5, application for restoration of the suit. That application is pending and stand posted on 07.02.2012.

¶32

Petitioner, apprehending that respondents might in the meantime cut trees in the suit property in their attempt to construct building has filed this original petition seeking direction to the learned Munsiff, Neyyattinkara to dispose of Ext.P5, application forthwith and issue appropriate orders directing the respondents not to make any construction in plaint A schedule. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it was by an inadvertent mistake that the

¶33

O.P(C).No.263 of 2013

¶34

¶35

suit happened to be dismissed for default.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner and other plaintiffs have no right over the property and that property stands in the name of the second respondent who is paying revenue.

¶37

I need not go into the question of partibility of plaint A schedule property. Admittedly, there was an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from constructing building and committing waste in plaint A schedule property and that order was in force when the suit was dismissed for default.

¶38

Application for restoration is pending and comes up for hearing before learned Munsiff on 07.02.2012. When this original petition came up for hearing on 21.01.2013, this Court directed respondents not to commit waste in the plaint A schedule property, cut open road or put up structure therein for a period of three weeks. That order can remain in force for some time. In the meantime, learned Munsiff can dispose of Ext.P5, application for restoration of the suit.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondents raised the apprehension that service of notice on the application for restoration on all the defendants may take much time. Learned

¶40

O.P(C).No.263 of 2013

¶41

¶42

counsel told me of the urgency of the third respondent to complete construction of the structures.

¶43

Learned counsel for petitioner has undertaken that on such of the defendants in the application for restoration who are not already served, petitioner will serve notice from the trial court through special messenger. The undertaking made by the learned counsel is recorded. Petitioner shall take out special messenger from the trial court for service on the defendants who are not served on the application for restoration of the suit.

¶44

This original petition is disposed of as under:

¶45

(i) Learned Munsiff, Neyyattinkara is directed to dispose of the application for restoration in O.S.No.949 of 1998 after hearing both sides, as early as possible.

¶46

(ii) It is directed that the interim order passed by this Court on 21.01.2013 will remain in force till 22.02.2013 or till learned Munsiff disposes of the application for restoration of the suit, whichever is earlier.

¶47

(iii) In case the suit is restored, learned Munsiff shall dispose of the application for temporary injunction as early as possible untrammeled by order granted by this Court and extended by this judgment.

¶48

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶49

Sbna

Sadanandhan v. Pankajakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanandhan v. Pankajakshi

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

K.S.E.Board Vs Ramachandradas

Nirmala Vs Meenakshikutty

The Airport Authority of India Vs D.Preasanna Kumar

Divisional Forest Officer Vs Madhavan

M.Vijaya Kumar Vs Parayil Kunhiraman

Muhammedkutty Haji Vs M/S.India Cements Capital and Finance Ltd.