Dismissed

C.Kumaresan @ C.Kumar v. Raveendran Nair

Kerala HC1 Nov 2013OP(C)/3083/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an original petition filed by the petitioner as infructuous because he had already obtained the certified copy of the order in question. The Court directed the petitioner to challenge the order through appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to take steps to challenge the order on I.A.No.2240 of 2013 in O.S.No.530 of 2012 by instituting appropriate proceedings.

C.Kumaresan @ C.Kumar Vs Raveendran Nair — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/10TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

OP(C).No. 3083 of 2013 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.KUMARESAN @ C.KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O. CHELLASWAMY, PUTHEPARAMBIL HOUSE PERUMBAKKATTUSSERY KARA, PERUMBAKATTUSSERY VILLAGE KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. RAVEENDRAN NAIR S/O. KOCHUKUTTAN PILLAI EDACKAL VADAKKEMALIYIL HOUSE, MARIYANTHURUTHU.P.O. AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶11

2. V.R. SARATH

¶12

S/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, EDACKAL VADAKKEMALIYIL HOUSE MARIYANTHURUTHU.P.O., AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

kkj

¶15

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶16

O.P.(C).No.3083 of 2013

¶17

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2013

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This original petition is filed mainly seeking a direction to the Court of the Munsiff of Kottayam to issue a certified copy of the order passed on 30.8.2013 on I.A.No.2240 of 2013 in O.S.No.530 of 2012. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the trial court to adjourn the trial of the suit by a period of three months so as to enable the petitioner to challenge that order. This original petition was admitted and an interim order was passed on 6.9.2013 staying the trial of the suit for a period of two months. The petitioner has thereafter admittedly obtained the certified copy of the order passed on 30.8.2013 on I.A.No.2240 of 2013 in O.S.No.530 of 2012. He should therefore take steps to challenge that order. The original petition is therefore dismissed as infructuous reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge the order passed on 30.8.2013 by the Court of the Principal Munsiff of Kottayam on I.A.No.2240 of 2013 in O.S.No.530 of 2012 by instituting other

¶20

appropriate proceedings.

¶21

Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN,

¶22

JUDGE.

¶23

rkc.

C.Kumaresan @ C.Kumar v. Raveendran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kumaresan @ C.Kumar v. Raveendran Nair

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

Bhargavan Vs Sunny

Tangerine A.K. Vs M/S. Vantage Services

St.George Forane Church, Edathua Vs Joseph George

K.G.Binu Vs Union Bank of India

Mukri Ibrayi Vs P. Muhammed Kunhi Musaliyar

Marykutty Thomas Vs the Cherthala Co-Operative Urban Bank LTD.NO.2655