Sudhakran v. Lily
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of an Article 227 petition filed by the first defendant to compel the trial court to hear and decide a pending application to vacate an interim injunction without further delay, directing specific disposal within one month.
What did the court decide?
Directed the trial court to dispose of I.A.No.5915/2012 within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment after hearing both sides.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934
OP(C).No. 664 of 2013 (O)
I.A.NO.5915/2012 IN OS.73/2012 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER(S)/IST PETITIONER/IST DEFENDANT :-
SUDHAKRAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.VAMADEVA PANICKER, ROHINI SADANAM, MELAMCODE NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.RONY JOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS 2-3/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2-3 :-
1. LILY, D/O.GOMATHI, MUKKOLA MUDUPARAVILA HOUSE VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 020.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an injunction petition can be disposed of without notice to the respondents on the mere submission that it is pending before the trial court.
Whether the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 enables the High Court to direct a lower court to dispose of an application within a specified time frame.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SUDHAKRAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.VAMADEVA PANICKER
- respondent
LILY, D/GOMATHI
- respondent
SARASAMMA, W/SUDHAKARAN
- respondent
SREEJITH, S/SUDHAKARAN
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court