Allowed

Fr. Mathew v. St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church

Kerala HC23 Nov 2015CRP/629/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not permit rejection of a plaint solely for non-production of the original document relied upon. The court distinguished Order 7 Rule 14, directing the Sub Judge to take back the plaint and allow the suit to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the plaint is set aside; the Sub Judge is directed to take back the plaint on file and allow the petitioner to proceed with the suit.

Fr. Mathew Vs St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church — Property and Title | 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. 629 of 2015

¶6

IA.285/2015 IN OS.94/2010 OF SUB COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. FR. MATHEW, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.MATHAI, CHEMMANAPPADATHU HOUSE, MARIKA KARA PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶9

2. ISSAC ABRAHAM, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, ETHUNKACHALIL HOUSE, VAZHITHALA KARA, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

1. ST.THOMAS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, MARIKA KARA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, PIN-686161.

¶13

2. FR.JOY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, MUTTATHUTHATTEL HOUSE, KARIKODU KARA, MULAKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, PIN-688610.

¶14

3. BASELIOUSL THOMAS-I, PATRIARICHAL CENTRE, PUTHENCRUZ-682308.

¶15

4. MATHEWS MAR IVARIOUS, BASELIOUS PAULOSE-II CENTRE, KADAKKANADU P.O., KOLENCHERRY-682311.

¶16

5. FR.BINU SKARIA S/O.SKARIA, KOZHIKOTTU HOUSE, VADAKARA KARA KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE-688662.

....2/-

..2..

CRP.No. 629 of 2015

¶21

6. MATHAI, S/O.CHACKO, MANGALASSERIL HOUSE, MARIKA KARA PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686661.

¶22

7. BABY,

¶23

S/O.PAILY, KARIKULATHIL HOUSE, VAZHITHALA KARA, PARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-685589.

¶24

8. K.A.MANIKUNJU, S/O.ALIAS, KARAKKATTU PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MARIKA DESOM, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-685661.

¶25

9. M.J.SAIMON, S/O.JOHN, MANGALASSERIL HOUSE, MARIKA DESOM, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686661.

¶26

10. K.M.BABU, S/O.MARKOSE, KARTHANIKKATTU HOUSE, MARIKA DESOM, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686661.

¶27

11. BOBBY SKARIA, S/O.SKARIA, KOCHU PADINJAREKARAYIL HOUSE, MARIKA DESOM, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686661.

¶28

12. K.M.BABY, S/O.MATHEW, KURISUMGAL HOUSE, VAZHITHALA DESOM, MANAKKAD VILLAGE, PIN-685584.

¶29

R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.M..VARGHESE (CAVEATOR) R7 BY ADV. SRI.PETER K.ALIAS

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.No.629 of 2015

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2015

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS.94 of 2010. The plaint was rejected by the learned Sub Judge on the ground that they failed to produce the original of the document on which they relied on. This is challenged.

¶39

Heard.

¶40

I have not come across any provision under

¶41

which a plaint can be rejected on the ground of non production of an original document relied on by the plaintiffs. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not permit such rejection. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on Order 7 Rule 14 CPC in support of his argument that the plaint was rightly rejected. I cannot agree. The consequence of non production of a document is given in the rule itself. In any view of the matter, the impugned roder is liable to be set aside.

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P.No.629 of 2015

¶44

¶45

order is set aside. The learned Sub Judge is directed to take back the plaint on file and allow the petitioner to

¶46

proceed with the suit.

¶47

sd/-

¶48

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶49

R.AV

¶50

//True Copy//

¶51

PA to Judge

Fr. Mathew v. St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fr. Mathew v. St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church

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

Onakkoor Sehiyon Church Vs Mathai

Stephan Vs Johny

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs R.Vijayakumar