The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition as infructuous because the interim application (I.A.) filed by the petitioners in the underlying suit had already been disposed of by the court below, rendering the current petition devoid of substantial merit.
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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1200 of 2016 (O)
I.A.NO.966/2016 IN UNNUMBERED O.S. OF 2016 OF HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT (VACATION COURT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFFS :
1. SREERAMSARATH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.P.A.MOORTHY, RESIDING AT NO.12, ROCKS GARDEN, FATHIMA CHURCH ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI ,PIN 682 020.
2. AJU THOMAS,
BY ADV. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS :
1. PHYKON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT, L-11, THEJASWINI, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA, INDIA 695 581
2. MITHUNGOPAL,
AGED 37 YEARS,S/O.BHASKARAN VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.8/378,ALAPPURAM ROAD, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 006.
3. PRATHISH VIJAY,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR.K, RESIDING AT ASSET SIGNATURE APARTMENTS, TOWER-5, FLAT NO.9C, 9TH FLOOR, MENAMKULAM, KAZHAKOOTTAM, PIN 695 582.
4. PRABHU CHANDRAMOHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANYAM CHANDRAMOHAN, RESIDING AT T.C 39/1850, KG A-191, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 009.
..2/-
..2..
OP(C).No. 1200 of 2016 (O)
5. BABU MOHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C 2/377(1), "ROHINI ". ALAPPURAM ROAD, THIRUMALA(PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 006.
R1 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
O.P.(C)No.1200 of 2016
....................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2016.
JUDGMENT
When the original petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the interim application as I.A.No.966/2016 filed by the petitioners in the suit has been disposed of by the court below. So the prayer has become infructous. The above submission is recored and the petition is dismissed as infructous. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the order if any passed in the interlocutory application before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
/true copy/
P.S to Judge
cl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition praying for revival of an interim application should be allowed after it has been disposed of in interim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SREERAMSARATH
AJU THOMAS
PHYKON SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
MITHUNGOPAL
PRATHISH VIJAY
PRABHU CHANDRAMOHAN
K.RAMAKRISHNAN
RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
