Appeals against orders granting temporary injunction in a partition suit were heard. The court affirmed the impugned order, directed untrammeled disposal of the suit below, and discouraged time-bound disposal mandates while suggesting mediation.
Appeals dismissed; injunction order confirmed; trial court directed to dispose of suit without restraint; mediation suggested.
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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937
FAO.No. 167 of 2014 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 434/2012 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM DATED 04-04-2014
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
FATHIMA UMMA AGED 72 YEARS W/O.KUNHEEN @ KUNHAPPU HAJI AND D/O. KATTUKANDAN DECEASED KUNHAHAMMED HAJI KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK PIN 679 513
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR SRI.LAJI SAM ZACHARIAH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:
AVRA HAJI, AGED 70 YEARS SON OF KATTUKANDAN, DECEASED KUNHAHAMMED HAJI KULUKKOLIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK PIN 679 513
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH FAO.No. 174 of 2014 ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------FAO.Nos. 167 and 174 of 2014
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 21th January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
When these appeals are taken up today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that having regard to the facts and circumstances, all that may be necessary at this point of time is to issue a direction to expedite the final disposal of the suit itself. We see that the appeals are filed against the issuance of order of temporary injunction. The field now occupied by that order is with no order of stay from this Court.
Haji and for the first defendant Avra Haji that there is an erroneous description of the suit properties in the plaint and there
2
FAO.167 & 174/14
is some revision regarding the survey number mentioned in it. We see that this is a matter which can be brought to the notice of the trial court, so that the proceedings can be rectified at the instance of the parties.
In the aforesaid view of the matter and taking into consideration the submissions on behalf of the appellant, we confirm the impugned order of the trial court and order these appeals directing that the court below will try and dispose of the suit untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the plaintiff sought for time bound disposal of the suit. We are not inclined to do so. However, we would persuade the parties to take recourse to mediation, through the court of first instance.
The appeals are ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
vgs21/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether temporary injunction order should be stayed pending disposal of suit for partition.
Directions for time-bound disposal of the suit.
Fathima Umma
Avra Haji
Hydru Haji
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
