Disposed

P.T.Xavier v. P.v.Vikas

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016OP(C)/1721/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner approached this court seeking intervention under Article 227 to expedite disposal of interlocutory applications in an underlying suit filed for specific performance. The High Court observed that the lower court had already heard the matter and posted it for orders, deeming it unnecessary to pass fresh orders on the applications. Instead, it directed the lower court to expedite dispo

What did the court decide?

Directed the court below to expedite disposal of the suit after giving an opportunity to the parties to complete steps at the earliest.

P.T.Xavier Vs P.v.Vikas — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1721 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OS 152/2014 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

P.T.XAVIER, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, PUTHENTHARA HOUSE, ULLALA KARA, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 607.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BENNY VARGHESE

¶10

SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN

¶11

SRI.P.N.SUMODU

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. P.V.VIKAS, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, PLATHANATH HOUSE, ULLALA KARA, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 607.

¶14

2. JOSEPH K.V,AGED 52, S/O.VARKEY OUSPEH, ARAVINDATH HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM P.O, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TLAUK, PIN - 686 607.

¶15

3. MOLLY JOSE K, AGED 47, W/O.JOSEPH K.V., ARAVINDATH HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM P.O, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, PIN - 686 607.

¶16

R2 & R3 BY ADVS.SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

¶17

SRI.R.PARAMESWARA IYER

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

OP(C).No. 1721 of 2016 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 : THE DATE 1ST	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE D 05-09-2012 BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT.
EXHIBIT P2 : THE O.S COUR	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN NO 152/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB T, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P3 : THE I.A SUB	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION 2487/2014 IN O.S 152/2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P4 : THE I.A SUB	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ATTACHMENT PETITION 2486/2014 IN O.S 152/2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P5 : THE I.A SUB	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN 2487/2014 IN O.S 152/2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P6 : THE I.A SUB	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN 2486/2014 IN O.S 152/2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL COURT, KOTTAYAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIB --------------------	ITS: NIL ---

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

.................................................. O.P.(C).No.1721 of 2016

¶29

....................................................... Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2016.

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This original petition is filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this court for disposing interlocutory applications, Exts.P3 and P4, pending before the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, which have not been disposed of under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

The allegation in the petition was that the suit was filed for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for return of advance money. The petitioner also filed an application for injunction restraining the defendants from selling the property and also for attachment before judgment and both those applications are pending. Since the court below did not hear and dispose of those applications, the petitioner has approached this court.

¶33

Heard Sri. Benny Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Siraj Karoly, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. In spite of notice, the first respondent did not appear.

¶34

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is now posted to 3.8.2016 for orders in the above applications. So he does not want to proceed with the applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that steps have not completed and he

¶35

¶36

O.P.(C).No.1721 of 2016

¶37

had no objection in expediting the case after completing the steps.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief without payment of the balance court fee and the case is of the year 2014, a direction may be given to the court below for disposal of the case expeditiously.

¶39

Since the court below had already heard the petitions and posted for orders, I do not think it necessary for passing any orders in those applications as the applications are posted to 3.8.2016 for orders. So under such circumstances, this court feels that directing the court below to expedite the disposal of the suit will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So the court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the case after giving an opportunity to the parties to complete the steps at the earliest.

¶40

With the above directions and observations and recording the submission of the petitioner this petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶43

/true copy/

¶44

¶45

P.S to Judge

P.T.Xavier v. P.v.Vikas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.Xavier v. P.v.Vikas

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

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs Sunanda

Asha Mukundan Vs Anitha

Jose Vs Bindhu Muraleedharan

Mohandas K.B Vs Syamala

Abdul Latheef Vs Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

K.Harischandra Holla Vs K.Mohammad Haneef