The High Court allowed permission for withdrawing the appeal and suit O.S.No.3/1979 with liberty to file a fresh suit, applying Order XXXIII Rule 1(3) CPC despite dismissal due to lack of Section 92 sanction.
Permission to withdraw the appeal and suit O.S.No.3/1979 with liberty to file a fresh suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/15TH PHALGUNA, 1936
AS.No. 234 of 2001 (E)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13-03-2001 IN OS 3/1979 OF IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT(S)/PLAINTIFFS:
REV.FR.C.K.ISSAC, CHENAYAPPILLIL, PARAMBANCHERY, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
2. POULOSE, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PULINTHANAM, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
3. SAMUEL, MADATHIKUDIYIL, PULINTHANAM, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ SRI.K.SUNIL SRI.P.Z.NIJAZ SRI.A.C.THOMAS ADHIKARAM
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS 4, 5, 7 TO 10:
1. REV.FR.C.P.GEORGE, CHETTIAMKUDIYIL, POTHANICADU, KOTHAMANGALAM.
2. THOMAS MAR DIONYSIUS, METROPOLITAN, RESIDING AT VALIYAPALLI, KOTHAMANGALAM.
3. REV. FR. ELDHOSE VALIYAPARAMBIL, VALIYAPARAMBIL, THANKALAM, KAROOR KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.
4. V.V.SCARIA, VAZHAKKUDIYIL, ENANALLOOR, PULINTHANAM, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Msv/
-2-
-2-
AS.No. 234 of 2001 (E)
5. JOSE C. JOHN, CHENAYAPPILLIL, PALLARIMANGALAM, POTHANICADU VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.
6. V.V. JOSEPH, VAZHEKKUDIYIL HOUSE, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, PULINTHANAM KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
AS.No. 234 of 2001 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
IA.NO.4382/2004 IN AS.NO.234/2001
ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.1042/1997 IN OS.NO.3/1979 DATED 18.1.88 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.633/01 IN OS.3/1979 DTD.30.3.2001 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
IA.NO.4382/2004 IN AS.NO.234/2001
ANNEXURE A : A TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 27.11.2004 HAVING THE PUBLICATION OF THE CHURCH.
IA.NO.218/2006 IN AS.NO.234/2001
ANNEXURE A: THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.4382/2004 DTD.5.1.2005.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION REGARDING THE CEREMONIES CONDUCTED IN 2003 PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DATED 7.12.2003.
ANNEXURE R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION OF SUPPLEMENT REGARDING THE DETAILS OF CEREMONIES IN 2004.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
A.S.No.234 OF 2001
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
The appellants have filed I.A.No.506 OF 2015, seeking permission
to withdraw the appeal and the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
provides that where the court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, the court may grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. It is seen that the suit was dismissed for want of sanction provided for under Section 92(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the circumstances, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the appeal and the suit O.S.No.3 of 1979 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of the said suit.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
Sd/-
jes
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether permission can be granted to withdraw the appeal and suit when the suit was dismissed for want of necessary sanction under Section 92(1) CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
REV.FR.C.K.ISSAC AND ORS.
REV.FR.C.P.GEORGE AND ORS.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
