In an original petition under Article 227 and 228 of the Constitution, petitioners sought transfer of a property suit and directions for its expeditious disposal. The court dismissed the petition, observing that disposal depends on the Advocate Commissioner's report and that issues were not pleaded in trial.
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 P.N.RAVINDRAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/18TH BHADRA, 1935
OP(C).No. 2857 of 2013 (O)
(IN THE MATTER OF O.S.NO.95/2009 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
KALPETTA
PETITIONER(S):
1. MOIDEEN KUTTY P.K. AGED 48 YEARS
2. HAMSA C. AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE HASAN, RESIDING AT CHAMAKKALAYIL, ANAPPARA CHUNDEL P.O., KOTTARAPPADY VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK
BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 1,3,5 & 6/STATE/UNION OF INDIA
1. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. CHUNDAL ESTATE REPRESENTED BY ITS GROUP MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER S.SASHANAK MOULY, S/O, MOULY, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT ESTATE BUNGLAW IN CHUNDALE VILLAGE VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 123.
2. RASHEED, AGED 45 YEARS
3. SOMAN
S/O.KRISHNAN, NELLIKKAL VADAKKERI HOUSE, AUDATHODE CHUNDALE POST, AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 123.
4. WAYANAD BHOOSAMRAKHANA SAMITHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, G.SANJEEVAN S/O.LATE GIRIYAPPAN, PULARI NIVAS THRIKKEPATTA POST AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 577.
5. G.SANJEEVAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.LATE GIRIYAPPAN, PULARI NIVAS THRIKKEPATTA POST AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT ON HIS OWN BEHALF AS REPRESENTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INCLUDING IN ANAPPARA AND CHUNDALE VILLAGE VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 577.
6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
7. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNENT MINISTRY AND DEPARTMENT OF LAW, NEW DELHI-110 001.
R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.A.RAJEEK
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 2857 of 2013 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EHIBIT P1. | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 2/4/2009 IN OS NO.95/2009 |
|---|---|
| PENDING BEFORE THE MUNCIFF'S COURT, KALPETTA. | |
| EHIBIT P2. | TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1,2,4,5 AND 6 DATED 09/7/2009 IN OS NO.95/2009 |
| PENDING BEFORE THE MUNCIFF'S COURT, KALPETTA. |
| EHIBIT P3. | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/10/2006 PASSED BY THE |
|---|---|
| HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN OP NO.1950/2013. |
| EHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/3/2009 PASSED BY THE |
|---|---|
| HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.5324/209. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
\TRUE COPY \
PA TO JUDGE
jm/
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
O.P.(C).No.2857 of 2013
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are defendants 2 and 4 in O.S.No.95 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kalpatta. The first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 1, 3, 5 and 6 therein. The sixth respondent is the State of Kerala and the seventh respondent is the Union of India. The State of Kerala and Union of India are not parties to the suit. In this original petition filed under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
that the question whether the large extent of land held by the first
..2..
O.P.(C).No.2857 of 2013
respondent/plaintiff which is stated to be a foreign company is in gross violation of land laws in the State of Kerala and the Union of India and offends the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India arise for consideration and therefore the suit is liable to be transferred to this Court. It is contended that an adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit would require a finding on the said issues as well. In support of the relief for expeditious disposal of the suit, it is stated that though the suit is ripe for trial, it is not being tried and disposed of. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Registry has called for a copy of the B diary and the proceedings paper in the suit. It discloses that joint trial of O.S.No.95 of 2009 with another suit O.S.No.58 of 2009 was ordered on 23.7.2009 by order passed on I.A.No.563 of 2009. The proceedings paper and the B diary also disclose that the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was remitted back to the Advocate Commissioner by order passed on 1.6.2010 on I.A.No.439 of 2010 and that the Advocate Commissioner has yet to file his report. The proceedings paper and B diary also disclose that the suit now stands posted to 11.10.2013 for the Commissioner's report. In such circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that all the defendants except the third defendant have entered appearance and filed
..3..
O.P.(C).No.2857 of 2013
written statements, I find no grounds to direct the trial court to dispose the suit even before the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court submits his report.
O.P.(C).No.2857 of 2013
..4..
plaint B schedule property.
None of the grounds which have been put forward in ground A of the instant original petition have been raised in the written statement filed by the petitioners in the suit. In such circumstances, I find no merit or justification in granting the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners. The original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but with the observation that it will be open to the petitioners after the Advocate Commissioner submits his report, to move this Court for expeditious trial and disposal of the suit.
Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
rkc.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an original petition under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution can direct expeditious disposal of a suit pending before the trial court before the Advocate Commissioner submits his report
Whether the grounds raised in the original petition are properly pleaded as an injunction in the trial.
Whether the High Court can transfer the suit to itself for adjudication on violation of land laws.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Moideen Kutty P.K.
Hamsa C.
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.
State of Kerala
Union of India
P.N. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
