Allowed

Onakkoor Sehiyon Church v. Mathai

Kerala HC23 Nov 2015CRP/621/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the civil revision petition and set aside a non-speaking order from the Sub-Court which granted permission to institute a suit under Section 92 CPC without providing reasons. The Court directed the Sub-Court to reconsider the matter and pass an order on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order granted permission to the under the OP is set aside. The Sub-Court is directed to reconsider the matter and pass an order on merits without delay.

Onakkoor Sehiyon Church Vs Mathai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

CRP.No. 621 of 2015

¶6

OP 1/2012 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 22-06-2015.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 TO 5:

¶8

1. ONAKKOOR SEHIYON CHURCH, OANAKKOOR KARA, REPRESENTED BY VICAR FR. JOY, AGED 53, ANAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KARIKODE KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.

¶9

2. FR.JOY, AGED 53, ANAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KARIKODE KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.

¶10

3. N.A.DAVID, AGED 53, S/O.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT ANADAYAKUNNEL HOUSE, ONAKKOOR KARA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶11

4. CHINNAN, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 58, KALAPPURAYIL, ONAKKOOR KARA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN SRI.SUNIL JACOB

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 &2 AND RESPONDENT 2:

¶14

1. MATHAI, AGED 75, S/O.MATHEW, KODAKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶15

2. ABRAHAM, AGED 73, S/O.CHACKO, RESIDING AT PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, ONAKKOOR KARA, THIRUMARADDY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶16

3. FR. VIJU ELIAS, AGED 33, S/O.ELIAS, RESIDING AT THANNIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THALPANA KARA, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.P..MARTIN JOSE

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶22

C.R.P.No.621 of 2015

¶23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶24

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2015

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioners are some of the respondents in OP.1 of 2012 on the file of Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha. The OP was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 92 C.P.C. for permission to institute a suit. By the impugned order the learned Sub Judge has granted the permission. This is challenged.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

The only reason stated by the learned Sub

¶29

Judge to grant the leave is: “ It will comes squarely within the ambit of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure”. It is very surprising that the order does not contain the reasons for passing it. In fact this is a non speaking order. It appears that the learned Sub Judge did not understand the scope of Section 92 CPC. That may be reason for not discussing the facts which are relevant under Section 92 CPC. The order is liable to be set aside.

¶30

In the result this C.R.P is allowed. The impugned

¶31

¶32

C.R.P.No.621 of 2015

¶33

order is set aside. The learned Sub Judge is directed to

¶34

reconsider the matter and to pass an order on merits. The

¶35

OP shall be disposed of without delay.

¶36

sd/-

¶37

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶38

R.AV

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

PA to Judge

Onakkoor Sehiyon Church v. Mathai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onakkoor Sehiyon Church v. Mathai

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

State of Kerala Vs Malathy

Johny Vs Victoriya Ajitha

Antony Leo Vs Benjamin Samuel

Fr. Mathew Vs St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church

Stephan Vs Johny

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs R.Vijayakumar