Disposed

Raju @Rajan v. P.K Vidyadharan

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013OP(C)/3526/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was disposed of after the parties settled their dispute through mediation. The High Court directed the trial court to record the compromise and dispose of the underlying suit within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Munsiff Court of Kayamkulam to dispose of O.S.No.37 of 2011 on the basis of the compromise entered into by the parties within one month.

Raju @Rajan Vs P.K Vidyadharan — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

OP(C).No. 3526 of 2013 (O)

¶6

(JUDGMENT IN CMA 15/2011 & 16/2011 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA DATED 07-09-2013)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. RAJU @RAJAN

¶9

S/O. PAPPU, CHANKOORTHEKKATHILVEETTIL, KAMANDISSERIL PRAYAR NORTH MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶10

2. RATNAMMA

¶11

W/O. RAJAN, CHANKOORTHEKKATHILVEETTIL, KAMANDISSERIL PRAYAR NORTH MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶13

SRI.S.NANDAGOPAL

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1. P.K VIDYADHARAN

¶16

VISHNUPURATHU, PRAYAR VADAKKUMURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE PRESIDENT S.N.D.P. SHAKHA YOGOM NO. 392

¶17

PRAYAR SOUTH-690547.

¶18

2. K.VIDHYADHARAN

¶19

KANNAMKUDATHARAYIL, PRAYAR SOUTH MURI

¶20

CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK SECRETARY S.N.D.P SHAKHAYOGOM NO. 392 PRAYAR SOUTH-690547.

¶21

3. RAGHU

¶22

KAMANDISSERIL, PRAYAR NORTH MURI PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE-690547.

¶23

R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

¶24

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

OP(C).No. 3526 of 2013 (O) ---------------------------

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXHIBIT P1- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 28-01-2011. EXHIBIT P2- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 10-02-2011.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3- PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 03-03-2011 IN I.A. 265/11 AND IA 303/11 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4- COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN CMA 15-2-2011 CMA 16/2011 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE

SCL.

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

¶36

O.P.(C) No.3526 of 2013

¶37

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2013

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.37 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kayamkulam. The respondents are the defendants therein. Along with the plaint, the petitioners filed I.A.No.265 of 2011 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents and their men from closing the 'C' schedule pathway by constructing a compound wall or committing acts of waste therein or from causing any obstruction to the petitioners. Later, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.303 of 2011 for an interim mandatory injunction. These applications were heard and allowed by Ext.P3 order passed on 3.3.2011. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 1 and 2 filed C.M.A.Nos.15 & 16 of 2011 in the Court of the First Additional District Judge of Mavelikara. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 7.9.2013, the lower appellate court allowed the appeals and set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the trial court. Hence this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

When this original petition came up before me on 17.10.2013, I directed the parties to make an attempt to resolve their disputes and differences by mediation. They were also directed

¶41

O.P.(C) No.3526 of 2013

¶42

¶43

to be present before the Nodal Officer, District Mediation Centre, Alappuzha at 11 AM on 28.10.2013. Thereupon, the mediation talks were held and the disputes between the parties was settled out of court. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the proper course would be to forward the original of the compromise petition to the trial court so that the suit itself can be disposed of on the basis of the compromise.

¶44

I accordingly dispose of the original petition with a direction to the Court of the Munsiff of Kayamkulam to dispose of O.S.No.37 of 2011, after recording the compromise entered into between the parties. The Registry shall, for that purpose, forward along with a copy of this judgment, the original of the compromise petition, the original of the report submitted by the mediator and the original of the letter dated 31.10.2013 sent by the District Co-ordinator, District Mediation Centre, Alappuzha to the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala. The court below shall dispose of the suit in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties within one month from the date of receipt of the records.

¶45

P.N. RAVINDRAN JUDGE

¶46

Scl.

Raju @Rajan v. P.K Vidyadharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @Rajan v. P.K Vidyadharan

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

Joy Vs Ittianam

Madhavan Velappan Vs Arogya Mary

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Jobbey K. Mathew

Shaji a, S/O.Narayanan Vs the Manager, Shri.Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd

Ddevanand Shenoy Vs M/S. M.V.J Foods

Reji P.Cherian Vs Muhammed