Partly allowed

P.S. Viswanathan v. Spl. Tahsildar

Kerala HC9 Jan 2014CRP/576/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Kerala High Court was referred a Civil Revision Petition. The court directed the trial court to set aside cost awarded in a review petition filed by a blind petitioner represented by legal aid counsel and passed appropriate orders in an interim injunction application pending before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Cost awarded in IA 4045/2012 set aside; Trial court directed to pass appropriate orders in IA 991/2003.

P.S. Viswanathan Vs Spl. Tahsildar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/19TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

CRP.No. 576 of 2013 ()

¶6

IN OS 970/1995 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

P.S. VISWANATHAN, S/O. LATE SADASIVAN C/O. POST MASTER, SINGANALLUR COIMBATORE -5

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1 SPCIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL KOLLENGODE (DISSOLVED)

¶12

2 S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN (DIED)

¶13

3 RUKMANI (DIED), W/O. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶14

4 INDULAKSHMI (DIED)

¶15

5 ANAND, S/O. S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN (NOT CONTESTING)

¶16

6 SRIRAM, S/O. S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶17

7 SITADEVI, D/O. S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶18

8 SRIKRISHNAN R. S/O. S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN (NOT CONTESTING)

¶19

9 NATHAN P.V., S/O. S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN (NOT CONTESTING)

¶20

10 SWATHILAKSHMI, D/O. S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN (NOT CONTESTING)

¶21

11 SRIRAJ, S/O. S.S. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶22

(RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT THAREKKAD, PALAKKAD)

¶23

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0901-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

C.R.P. NO. 576/2013

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶27

ANNEXURE -I : THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2013 IN REVIEW PETITION IA NO.4045/2012 IN OS NO.970/95 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE -II : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION IA NO.4045/2012 IN OS NO.970/95 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE -III : THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN REVIEW PETITION IA NO.4045/2012 IN OS NO.970/95 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

// true copy //

PA to Judge

das

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶33

==========================

¶34

C.R.P. No. 576 of 2013

¶35

=================================== Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2014

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff is stated to be a blind person. He had earlier moved this court for appointing a counsel of this court to appear for him. As directed by this court legal aid counsel has been appointed.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing as the legal aid counsel submits that the trial court was not justified in awarding cost in IA 4045/2012 to be paid to D6 and D7. D6 and D7 were set ex parte. They filed application to set aside the ex parte order. That order was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner/plaintiff contending that he was not given opportunity to file counter in that application. The trial court stated reasons for dismissing the review petition.

¶39

The suit was not decreed ex parte. The suit is still pending. Though D6 and D7 were set ex parte earlier, that does not mean that they cannot defend the suit from the stage they appear in court.

¶40

-: 2 :-

¶41

C.R.P.No.576/2013

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application IA 991/2003, was filed by the plaintiff in which an interim injunction was earlier granted, but subsequently it was suo-motu reviewed and vacated. Considering the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff is a blind man and his case is being conducted by a legal aid counsel, it is not practical to order notice to D6 and D7.

¶43

The trial court should see that justice is not denied to the party. Hence, considering all the aspects, the cost awarded as per Annexure A1 order is set aside. But the order setting aside the ex parte order passed against D6 and D7 does not warrant any interference now.

¶44

As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court is directed to pass appropriate orders in IA 991/2003 in which there was earlier, an order of injunction against alienation.

¶45

This CRP is disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶47

das

¶48

// True copy //

¶49

PA to Judge

P.S. Viswanathan v. Spl. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S. Viswanathan v. Spl. Tahsildar

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

Sumangala Vs Kunju Mol

Aminu Vs Hussan

M/S.Ansal Buildwell Limited Vs Garden View Apartment Owners Association

Devaki Amma Vs Ramachandran Pillai

Sini Chandra Vs Neelambaran

Thomas Vs Binoy (Minor)