Disposed

Sureshkumar v. Satheesan

Kerala HC8 Jan 2016CRP/268/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition challenging an interim injunction order, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the suit on specific performance and sale of property by initiating expert opinion on a disputed document or proceeding before summer vacation.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of with directions to trial court to dispose of suit within four months or before summer vacation.

Sureshkumar Vs Satheesan — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRP.No. 268 of 2015 ()

¶6

----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA 60/2014 of III ADDL.D.C., KOLLAM DATED 26-02-2015

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/FIRST DEFENDANT:

¶8

SURESHKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS S/O., REMANAN, THENGUVILA VEEDU TKMC PO, KARIKKODU CHERRY, MANGADU VILLAGE KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶11

1. SATHEESAN, AGED 43 YRS S/O. RAVEEDNRAN, IDATHUMBALA KIZHAKKATHIL, PERINADU PO THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT SIVANANDANTHIL, PERINADU PO THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 601

¶12

2. LALI

¶13

W/O. SEBASTIAN, IDATHUMBALA KIZHAKKATHIL, PERINADU PO THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT SIVANANDANTHIL, PERINADU PO THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 601

¶14

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

LSN

¶17

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶18

C.R.P. No.268 of 2015

¶19

Dated this the 08^th day of January, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. 31/13 of

¶22

Principal Sub Court, Kollam. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement allegedly entered into between the petitioner and the respondents/plaintiffs. Along with the plaint the respondents filed an application for an injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating the property to strangers and interfering with their possession. The trial court allowed the prayer for injunction restraining dispossession, but refused the other prayer. By the impugned judgment the learned District Judge has allowed the prayer for injunction restraining alienation also. This is challenged.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶24

The respondents have produced in the trial court documents in support of their claim. The petitioner disputes genuineness of one of the documents. Admittedly, the property is in the possession of the respondents. The petitioner's case is that it is under rent arrangement they are

¶25

C.R.P. No.268 of 2015

¶26

¶27

in possession of the property. Having regard to these facts of the case, I am inclined to dispose of this revision petition with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit within four months from the date of receipt of the report of the expert to whom the respondents propose to send the document for opinion.

¶28

In the result, this revision petition is disposed of as follows:

¶29

If the respondent files an application in the trial court to send the disputed document for expert opinion within three weeks from today, the court shall send it for expert opinion and dispose of the suit within four months from the date of receipt of the report of the expert. If the respondents do not file an application as stated above, the Court shall proceed to try the suit and dispose it of before the court closes for summer vacation in 2016. The suit shall be disposed of untrammeled by any of the observations in the impugned order and judgment.

¶30

Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, Judge

¶31

True Copy

¶32

P.A to Judge

¶33

lsn

Sureshkumar v. Satheesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshkumar v. Satheesan

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

P.K.Mohammed Basheer Vs P.K.Zachariah

Bijimole Rasheed Vs Ranni Block Panchayat

T.T.Mathew Vs K.D.Sebatin

Gopalakrishnan Vs Sunilkumar

Vikhnakumar Vs Yasodharan

Ajayakumar Vs Mulamoottil Consumer Credited Limited