Dismissed

G.Sanal Kumar v. Trivandrum Club

Kerala HC1 Sept 2016OP(C)/1694/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought to challenge an order obtained from the lower court after vacating an interim injunction. The Court held that since the petitioner had already obtened the certified copy and filed an appeal, the writ petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order via writ proceedings having moved an appeal.

G.Sanal Kumar Vs Trivandrum Club — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/10TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1694 of 2016 (O)

¶6

I.A. NO.6003/2016 IN O.S. NO.1331/2016 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. G. SANAL KUMAR,

¶9

S/O. THE LATE K.K. GOPINATHAN, HINDU, AGED 50, RESIDING AT "SHIVAM", ROSE GARDEN, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11.

¶10

¶11

GOPINATHAN UNNI A.K.,

¶12

S/O. THE LATE VENAT NARAYANAN NAMPOOTHIRI, AGED 69, RESIDING AT 'AKSHAYA', K-133, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.PRADEEP, SRI.MILESH.V.PAVIYALA.

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. TRIVANDRUM CLUB, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

2. MANOJ M.R., S/O. E. MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 41, RESIDING AT N-1, JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

3. GEORGE PULIMOOD, AGED ABOUT 67, RESIDING AT 'PRASANTH' T.C. 29/720, NANDAVANAM ROAD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, FUNCTIONING NOW AS THE ELECTION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶18

4. G. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 50, RESIDING AT T.C 9/159 (1) 'NYRMALYAM', JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, FUNCTIONING NOW AS THE ELECTION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN.

¶20

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

OP(C).No. 1694 of 2016 (O)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 1331 OF 2016 DATED 22.06.2016 IN THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

EXT. P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 6003 OF 2016 DATED 22.06.2016.

¶27

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN DATED 25.06.2016 IN EXT P-2 APPLICATION.

¶28

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/07/2016, IN I.A. NO.6003/2016 IN O.S. NO.1331/2016.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

========================

¶35

O.P.(C) No.1694 of 2016

¶36

==========================

¶37

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2016

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

¶40

227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

¶41

a) Call for the records leading to order dt. 05.07.2016 passed in Ext.P2 application (I.A No.6003/2016 in O.S No.1331/2016 of Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram) and set aside the same.

¶42

b) Direct the court below to issue the certified copy of order dt.05.07.2016 passed in Ext.P2 application.

¶43

c) Such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶44

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are life members of first respondent and as advised by the General Body all the ten members of the executive committee of 2012 -2013 were debarred from holding any elected post as per Article VI(17) of the club bye law. Five members of the executive committee of the year 2013-2014 suffered from the same punishment. The first petitioner filed O.S No.504 of 2013 before First Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in which the court directed

¶45

O.P.(C) No.1694/2016

¶46

Page numbers

¶47

the club not to proceed with the admission of new members. Earlier, an interim injunction was granted.

¶48

The respondent entered appearance and filed counter. Thereafter the court below had vacated the interim order without hearing the petitioners and the case posted for further hearing and further though he filed an application for copy, the same has not been granted. That prompted the him to file the petition.

¶49

When the application came up for hearing today, counsel for the first respondent submitted that the certified copy has already been obtained and it has been produced before this Court by the petitioners themselves as Ext.P4. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the second prayer has become infructuous as the certified copy has already been obtained and the court below has posted the case for hearing and election is already over and they have taken charge. It is true that the petitioner had challenged Ext.P4 order said to have been passed on 05.07.2016 itself. The counsel for petitioner submitted that he had already moved a C.M.Appeal before the District Court and the District Court is not entertaining that

O.P.(C) No.1694/2016

Page numbers

application.

Having obtained the certified copy and moved the appellate court under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner is not entitled to keep the petition pending before this Court and challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Whether the appeal is maintainable or not etc. is a matter to be considered by the court. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, then they are at liberty to move the appellate forum.

¶54

With the above direction and observation this petition is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶57

vdv/03/09/16

G.Sanal Kumar v. Trivandrum Club

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sanal Kumar v. Trivandrum Club

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.M.Zeinuddin Vs Hassainar

M.C.Sarojini Amma Vs P.Gopalan

Joji Joseph Vs Indian Pentecostal Church of God (Ipc)

Sreedevi G. Vs Ratheesh K.S.

K.R.George Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

Suseela Vs Sheela