Disposed

T.T.Philip @ Monichan v. Thomas John

Kerala HC8 Jul 2016OP(C)/1649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice K. Harilal exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to prevent irreparable injury to the petitioner. He directed the District Court to dispose of pending petitions within two months and ordered the Munsiff Court to keep a prosecution petition in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

The District Court directed to dispose of petitions in CMA No. 6/2016 within two months; the prosecution petition kept in abeyance until then.

T.T.Philip @ Monichan Vs Thomas John — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1649 of 2016 (O)

¶6

CMA 6/2016 of DISTRICT COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA OS 333/2014 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

T.T.PHILIP @ MONICHAN

¶9

AGED:78 YEARS, S/O LATE THOMAS, CHERUKARATHADATHIL, VELLIYARA PO, THIRUVALLA,

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ

SRI.SAJJU.S

RESPONDENT(S):

1. THOMAS JOHN

S/O K.A.JOHN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, THADIYOOR P.O., EZAHUMATTOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK

¶15

2. SHINU ABRAHAM

¶16

W/O. MONCY MATHEWS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PUNNAKADU HOUSE, VALLIYARAKARA, AYROOR VILLGE, NOW RESIDING AT KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, THADIYOOR P.O., EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK - 689101

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

OP(C).No. 1649 of 2016 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 333/14 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI
P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 1696/14 IN OS 333/14 ON THE FILED OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI
P3:	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER IN IA 1696/14 IN OS 333/14 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI IN OS 333/14 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI
P4:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 10/12/14 IN IA NO. 1696/14 IN OS 333/14 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI
P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET OF OS NO. 333/14 ON 16/1/16, OBTAINED FORM THE WEBSITE OF THE COURT
P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1611/15 IN OS NO. 333/14 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI
P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.A NO. 6/16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE IA 150/16 IN CMA 6/16 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
P9:	TRUE COPY OF IA 151/16 IN CMA 6/16 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICTCOURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CMA NO. 6/16 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
RESPOND	ENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. HARILAL, J.

O.P. (C) No.1649 of 2016-O

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner is the 2^nd defendant in O.S. No.333/2014 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Ranni, and the 1^st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the 2^nd respondent herein is the 1^st defendant in the suit. The trial court passed Ext.P4 injunction order against the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and thereafter, the petitioner had filed a review petition and the same was dismissed. Later, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 CMA, along with Ext.P8 petition, to condone the delay and Ext.P9 petition to stay the operation of Ext.P4 injunction order. But, in the meantime, the respondents had proceeded with Ext.P6 prosecution petition and the petitioner has filed

¶31

O.P. (C) No.1649 of 2016 -: 2 :-

¶32

objection. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the respondents are allowed to proceed with Ext.P6 prosecution petition, before the consideration and disposal of Exts.P8 and P9 petitions in Ext.P7 CMA, the petitioner will be put to irreparable injury and great hardship.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

Having regard to the irreparable injury and hardship that may be caused to the petitioner, if the 1^st respondent is allowed to proceed with Ext.P6 prosecution petition, before the consideration and disposal of Exts.P8 and P9 petitions in Ext.P7 CMA, this Court is inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the court below under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

The District Court, Pathanamthitta, is directed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9 petitions in Ext.P7 CMA, within a period of two months from today and the Munsiff's Court, Ranni, is directed

¶36

O.P. (C) No.1649 of 2016

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

to keep Ext.P6 prosecution petition, in abeyance, till the disposal of Exts.P8 and P9 in Ext.P7 CMA.

¶39

This Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of

¶40

accordingly.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶43

Nan/

¶44

//true copy//

¶45

P.S. to Judge

T.T.Philip @ Monichan v. Thomas John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.T.Philip @ Monichan v. Thomas John

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

K.C.Antony Vs Vijayan

Chinnamuth @ Abdul Khader Vs Saithoon

Fathima Vs M/S. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited

Saifunnisa Vs Abdul Muizee

Bella Sathyanarayana Vs P.S.Praveen Kumar

Akhila Vs Kiran