Allowed

Aby T. Alex v. Binu C.V.

Kerala HC20 Oct 2015OP(C)/2462/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the petition challenging a trial court order directing the commissioner to relock the building and produce the key. The Court set aside the relocking direction, allowing petitioners to occupy and get utilities, while prohibiting construction for one month pending measurement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to relock building and produce key set aside; petitioners allowed to occupy and get utilities; construction prohibited for one month.

Aby T. Alex Vs Binu C.V. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/28TH ASWINA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 2462 of 2015 (O)

¶6

--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 981/2015 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/2ND PLAINTIFFS:

¶9

ABY T. ALEX AGED 46 YEARS S/O.T.ALEXANDAR, 2B-SILPAKALA RESIDENCYKAKKANAD P.O. ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.R.LEELA

¶11

SMT.P.I.SHAMLATH

¶12

SMT.U.S.SARITHA

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANT:

¶14

BINU C.V.

¶15

S/O.VARGHESE, CHAKIYATHPRAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHANPALLI VARAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM 683 517.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(C).No. 2462 of 2015 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.981/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT IV, ERNAKULAM

¶22

EXHIBIT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5901/2015 IN OS NO.981/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT IV, ERNAKULAM

¶23

EXHIBIT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 12/8/2015 IN I.A NO.5901/2015.

¶24

EXHIBIT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.6765/2015 IN OS NO.981/2015 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT IV, ERNAKULAM

¶25

EXHIBIT.P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER REPORT IN IA NO.6765/2015 FILED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW

¶26

EXHIBIT.P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.7230/2015 IN OS NO.981/2015

¶27

EXHIBIT.P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO.7230/2015

¶28

EXHIBIT.P8: THE TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.7230/2015 IN OS NO.981/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

R.AV

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶35

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

¶36

O.P.(C).No.2462 of 2015

¶37

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2015

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is

¶40

the defendant in O.S.981 of 2015 of Munsiff Court,

¶41

Ernakulam. The latter under took to construct a building in the property of the former. It is alleged that before the construction could be completed the contract was terminated. The petitioners pray for an injunction. The commissioner appointed by the court prepared an inventory. The petitioners work abroad. When they came back to Kerala they saw that the lock of the building had

¶42

been sealed unauthorisedly by someone. They filed an application to appoint a commissioner and allow them to break open the lock. By Ext.P8 order the learned Munsiff allowed it. But he directed the commissioner to relock the door and produce the key before the court. This direction is challenged.

¶43

Heard.

¶44

The facts of the case indicate that the

¶45

respondent conducted himself in a highhanded manner.

¶46

This should not have been allowed by the trial court. The

¶47

O.P.(C).No.2462 of 2015 2

¶48

trial court should have allowed the petitioners to break

¶49

open the lock by themselves and re-occupy the building. But as an abundant caution a commission application was filed by the petitioners and it was allowed by the court. But the direction to re-lock the door and produce the key before the court cannot be upheld. The petitioners have every right to occupy the building. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Anilkumar submits that the petitioners shall not be allowed to do any work before the measurements are taken. The trial court shall pass appropriate orders to protect the interest of the respondent. If the respondent files an commission application for the said purpose, the trial court shall consider it on merits.

¶50

In the result, this O.P is allowed. The direction of the trial court to relock the building and produce the key before the court is set aside. The petitioners are allowed to occupy the building, for which the key shall be given to them by the court forthwith. But they shall not do any construction in the property for one month from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment by the

¶51

¶52

O.P.(C).No.2462 of 2015

¶53

trial court. The respondent shall file a commission application within seven days. Thereafter, within one month the measurements shall be taken, failing which the petitioners are at liberty to do any work in the property. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the petitioners getting electric and water supply to the building.

¶54

sd/-

¶55

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶56

R.AV

¶57

//True Copy//

¶58

PA to Judge

Aby T. Alex v. Binu C.V.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aby T. Alex v. Binu C.V.

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

Manickanamparambil Chitty Fund Vs K.Unnikrishnan Nair

K.P Varghese Vs Kunjamma

Premini @ Prema Vs Rajanisree Rajendran

Prasannakumari Vs Chandrakumar

Amrithakala Shetty Vs Gopalakrishna Bhat

Shamnad Vs Muhammed Ashraf