Disposed

Voga Vidhya Pranic Healing Foundation Tr v. Dr.Joy Joseph

Kerala HC18 Sept 2014OP(C)/2927/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the High Court of Kerala, Justice B.Kemal Pasha disposed of an original civil petition directing the Principal Munsiff's Court to dispose of a stayed suit. The court instructed the lower court to consider maintainability afresh, untrammelled by previous interim order observations and an impugned District Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Principal Munsiff's Court to dispose of O.S. No.1207/2010 without being bound by previous observations or judgments; maintainability to be heard afresh.

Voga Vidhya Pranic Healing Foundation Tr Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/27TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

OP(C).No. 2927 of 2011 (O)

¶6

CMA 5/2011 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

IA 7848/2010 IN OS.1207/2010 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

YOGA VIDHYA PRANIC HEALING FOUNDATION TRUST COCHIN, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KACHERIPPADI COCHIN-682 013, REPRESETNED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE MANOJ JOSE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.P.M.SAJI SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN

¶11

SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

DR.JOY JOSEPH, S/O.K.C.JOSEPH, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT 43/80 KUPPAZHAKKAL HOUSE P.O.VILLOONNI, THONNAKUZHI, KOTTAYAM TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 008.

¶14

YOGA VIDHYA PRANIC HEALING FOUNDATION TRUST COCHIN, KERALA, OLAPRATH BUILDING VYTTILA, COCHIN, PIN-682 019 REPRESENTED BY

¶15

FOUNDER AND MANAGING TRUSTEE DR.JOY JOSEPH.

¶16

R,R1, 2 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY R,R1, 2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL GEORGE R,R1, 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.SUMEESH

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OPC.2927/2011

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 1207 OF 2010.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A NO. 7848 OF 2010 IN O.S NO. 1207 OF 2010.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED OF THE PLAINTIFF.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED OF THE DEFENDANT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A NO. 7848 OF 2010.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO. 1207 OF 2010.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2010 IN I.A NO. 7848 OF 2010 BY THE LEARNED MUSIFF, ERNAKULAM.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2011 IN CMA NO.5 OF 2011 BY THE DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULAM.

¶29

RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

PA to Judge

¶32

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶33

¶34

O.P. (Civil) No.2927 of 2011

¶35

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2014

¶36

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶37

The present O.P. (Civil) has arisen from CMA No.5/2011 of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The said CMA was filed against order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam in I.A.

¶38

No.7848/2010 in O.S. No.1207/2010.

¶39

I.A. No.7848/2010 was filed under Order XXXIX

¶40

Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order of temporary injunction. Vide order dated 17.12.2010, the learned Munsiff declined the prayer for injunction and dismissed the I.A., against which CMA.5/2011 was preferred before the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The learned II Additional District Judge, through the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2011, upheld the order passed by the learned Munsiff and dismissed the CMA.

¶41

OPC.2927/2011

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶44

the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

The question is mainly relating to the maintainability of a suit of this nature before the Munsiff's Court. It has come out that the suit is almost in the final stage and the same stands stayed only because of the pendency of the present OP(Civil). On hearing either side, I am of the view that the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam can be directed to dispose of the suit quite untrammelled by any of the observations made by the said court in order dated 17.12.2010 in I.A. No.7848/2010 as well as the observations and findings entered by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment. If the maintainability of the suit is challenged, the Munsiff's Court shall hear that question afresh, quite untrammelled by the order as well as the judgment mentioned above.

¶46

In the result, this Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Munsiff's Court,

¶47

OPC.2927/2011

¶48

: 3 :

¶49

Ernakulam to dispose of O.S. No.1207/2010 quite untrammelled by any of the observations made by the said court in order dated 17.12.2010 in I.A. No.7848/2010 as well as by the learned Additional District Court in the impugned judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter, and has not expressed any opinion with regard to the matters contained in the said order as well as the impugned judgment.

¶50

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶51

aks/18/09

¶52

// True Copy //

¶53

PA to Judge

Voga Vidhya Pranic Healing Foundation Tr v. Dr.Joy Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Voga Vidhya Pranic Healing Foundation Tr v. Dr.Joy Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kseboard Vs Thomman Thomas

St.Xavier'S Church Vs K.S.E.B

Lekshmikutty Amma Vs Abdul Majeed

Sadasivan Vs Sasi

Petronet Cck Limited Vs K.v.Varghese

M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Vs Chinchu Sugunan