Disposed

Dr. K.P.v.Narayanan v. Chathoth Shuba

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016OP(C)/1767/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the lower court to expedite interim applications in suits filed by the petitioner's wife to restrain fund withdrawal, citing allegations that the petitioner is mentally challenged due to alcohol abuse. The Court ordered disposal within one month and mandated expedited hearing of any temporary arrangement applications within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed lower court to dispose of interim applications within one month; to expedite temporary arrangement applications within 15 days.

Dr. K.P.v.Narayanan Vs Chathoth Shuba — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1767 of 2016 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENDANT NO.2:

¶7

DR. K.P.V.NARAYANAN

¶8

AGED 66, S/O. AMBU V., DEEPAM, NEAR TOWN HALL, CHIRAKKARA P.O., THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR, NOW RESIDING AT ROOPA NIVAS, CHERICHAL, NEAR MUCHILOT, P.O.AJANUR, VIA.ANANDASHRAM, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT NO.1:

¶11

1. CHATHOTH SHUBA

¶12

AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. K.P.V.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT DEEPAM, NEAR TOWN HALL, CHIRAKKARA P.O., THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 141.

¶13

2. SENIOR MANAGER

¶14

STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANHANGAD BRANCH-671 121.

¶15

R BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBI

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(C).No. 1767 of 2016 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.199/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 11.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE POLLUTION BEARING IA NO.841/2016. EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF THE SUMMONS. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF IA NO.1369/2016 IN OS NO.199/2016. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2016 IN IA NO.1369/2016 IN OS NO.199/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

sou.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J

---------------------------------------------------O.P(C). No. 1767 of 2016 and O.P(C). No. 1769 of 2016

¶28

---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2016

¶29

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner in both these cases is the supplemental second defendant in O.S. No.199 of 2016 and O.S. No.211 of 2016, both pending before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery. The first respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner filed these suits against the Doctor's Co-operative Society, Thalassery and State Bank of India, Thalassery Branch respectively for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from releasing the amount in the name of the petitioner either from Savings Account or from the Fixed Deposit Account on the ground that he is a mentally challenged person incapable of maintaining himself and looking after his affairs. The petitioner filed applications before the Munsiff Court in both these cases for getting himself impleaded as second respondent in the suit as I.A.1369 of 2016 in O.S. No.199 of

¶31

¶32

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶33

2016 and I.A. No.1370 of 2016 in O.S. No.211 of 2016, and by separate orders namely Ext.P6 in O.P(C) No.1767 of 2016 and Ext.P5 in O.P(C).No.1769 of 2016, the court below allowed those applications after conducting enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, and permitted him to be impleaded as second respondent in both the suits. The first respondent herein filed I.A. No.841 of 2016 in O.S. No.199 of 2016 and I.A. No.874 of 2016 in O.S. No.211 of 2016 for temporary injunction restraining the only defendant shown in the suits namely the Bank and the Society from disbursing the amounts. But no interim injunction was granted in both the cases. In view of the pendency of those applications, he could not withdraw the amount for his maintenance and for medical expenses. In view of the pendency of the suits, bank is not allowing him to withdraw the amounts as well. In both the cases, the original defendants have filed detailed counter denying the allegations in the petition and even challenged the maintainability of the suit. In view of the pendency of those applications, he is not able to withdraw any amount from his account even to meet his requirements. So the petitioner has no other remedy except approaching this court seeking the following reliefs :

¶34

¶35

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶36

O.P(C).1767/2016 :

¶37

i. Direct the Court Below to take up and dispose off interim application bearing I.A. No.841/2016 in O.S. No.199/2016 forthwith or within a period to be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶38

ii. Direct the 2^nd respondent to disburse the 50% of the amount now lying in the deposit of the petitioner pending disposal of the above interim application bearing I.A. No.841/2016 and the suit bearing O.S. No.199/2016 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thalassery.

¶39

iii. To grant such other and further directions this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶40

O.P.(C).1769/2016 :

¶41

i. Direct the Court below to take up and dispose of interim application bearing I.A. No.874/2016 in O.S. No.211/2016 forthwith or within a period to be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶42

ii. Direct the 2^nd respondent to disburse the 50% of the amount now lying in the deposit of the petitioner pending disposal of the above interim application bearing I.A. No.874/2016 and the suit bearing O.S. No.211/2016 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thalassery.

¶43

iii. To grant such other and further directions this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶44

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this Court felt

¶45

that these petitions can be disposed of by dispensing with notice to respondents after getting report from the concerned Court. Accordingly a report has been called for and the Munsiff Court has sent a report dated 25.7.2016, which reads as follows :

¶46

¶47

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶48

Report submitted in O.P(C). No. 1767 of 2016:

¶49

“Vide reference above I am submitting the following facts for consideration. O.S. 199/16 was also filed by Chandroth Subha against Doctors Co-operative Society Ltd. for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from disbursing any amount to the husband of the plaintiff, Dr. K.P.V. Narayanan. Along with the said suit plaintiff filed I.A.841/16 for temporary injunction and that the Hon'ble Vacation Court has ordered urgent notice to the respondent in the application. O.S.199/2016 came up for consideration for the first time before this Court on 20.05.2016. On 20.05.2016 respondent/defendant in O.S. 199/16 has filed counter in I.A. 841/16 (renumbered as IA1134/16) and posted for hearing on 30.05.2016. However, Sri. K.P.V. Narayanan filed application to advance the hearing and also filed applications IA.1369/16 to implead himself in suit as supplemental defendant No.2. Accordingly, hearing in the matter was advanced to 13.6.2016. On 13.6.2016 plaintiff prayed for counter in the application and that the same was posted to 17.6.2016. On 17.6.2016 plaintiff filed counter. In her counter she admitted that the third party who filed the impleading application is none other than her husband and also raised a contention that he is a mentally challenged person die to excessive use of alcohol. In the light of the said contention, direction was given for appearance of the third party on 30.6.2016 for the purpose of conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15

¶50

¶51

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶52

CPC. Accordingly an enquiry was conducted on 30.6.2016 and this Court found that contention raised by the plaintiff in this behalf is incorrect and the impleading petition was allowed on merit on 30.6.2016 and that after interacting with the plaintiff and supplemental second defendant, I found that there is an element of settlement and accordingly parties were referred to mediation and due to the urgency in the matter the case was posted for the report of mediators on 12.7.2016. On 12.7.2016 it was reported by the mediators that the matter was not settled. Accordingly, suit as well as I.A.841/16 (IA.1134/16) was posted to 4.10.2016 as the plaintiff did not press urgent hearing in the applications for temporary injunction. It is most humbly submitted that in I.A.1369/16 the prayer is limited to implead him in the suit as supplemental second defendant and not in the application for temporary injunction. Supplemental defendant No.2 has not impleaded himsel16. It is submitted that I am ready to advance the hearing after giving notice to both parties in the suit and to dispose I.A. 841/16 (IA.1134/16) within two months from this date. The above facts are submitted for favour of consideration.”

¶53

Report submitted in O.P(C). No. 1767 of 2016

¶54

“Vide reference above I am submitting the following facts for consideration. O.S.No.211/16 was filed before the Hon'ble Vacation Court by one Chathoth Shubha against State Bank of India for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from disbursing

¶55

¶56

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶57

any amount to the husband of the plaintiff, Dr. K.P.V. Narayanan. Along with the said suit plaintiff filed I.A.874/16 for temporary injunction and that the Hon'ble Vacation Court has ordered urgent notice to the respondent in the application. OS 199/16 was also filed by same plaintiff against Doctors Co-operative Society Ltd. for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from disbursing any amount to the husband of the plaintiff, Dr. K.P.V. Narayanan. Along with the said suit also plaintiff filed IA 841/16 for temporary injunction and that the Hon'ble Vacation Court has ordered urgent notice to the respondent in the application. In OS No.211/16 and OS No.199/16 came up for consideration for the first time before this court on 4.6.16 respondent/defendant in OS 211/16 entered appearance and that the case was posted for filing counter in IA 874/16 (renumbered as IA 1197/16) to 16.7.16, being the suit date at the request of both counsel. On 20.05.16 respondent/defendant in OS 199/16 has filed counter in IA 841/16 (renumbered as IA 1134/16) and posted for hearing on 30.5.16. However, Sri. K.P.V. Narayanan filed application to advance the hearing and also filed applications IA 1370/16 and IA 1369/16 to implead himself in both suits as supplemental defendant No.2. Accordingly, hearing in the matter was advanced to 13.6.16. On 13.6.16 plaintiff prayed for counter in both applications and that the same were posted to 17.6.16. On 17.6.16 plaintiff filed counter. In her counter she admitted that the third party who filed the impleading application is none other than her husband and also

¶58

¶59

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶60

raised a contention that he is a mentally challenged person due to excessive use of alcohol. In the light of the said contention, direction was given for the appearance of the third party on 30.6.16 for the purpose of conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC. Accordingly an enquiry was conducted on 30.6.16 and this court found that contention raised by the plaintiff in this behalf is correct and the impleading petitions were allowed on merit on 30.6.16 and that after interacting with the plaintiff and supplemental second defendant, I found that there is an element of settlement and accordingly parties were referred to mediation and due to the urgency in the matter the case was posted for the report of mediators on 12.7.16. On 12.7.16 it was reported by the mediators that the matter was not settled. Accordingly, both suits as well as IA 874/16 (IA 1197/16) and I.A 841/16 (IA. 1134/16) were posted to 4.10.16 as the plaintiff did not press urgent hearing in the applications for temporary injunction. It is most humbly submitted that in IA 1370/16 and 1369/16 the prayer is limited to implead him in both suits as supplemental second defendant and not in the applications for temporary injunction. Supplemental defendant No.2 has not impleaded himself as a party in IA 874/16 and IA 841/16. It is submitted that I am ready to advance the hearing after giving notice to both parties in both suits and to dispose IA 874/16 (IA 1197/16) and IA 841/16 ( IA 1134/16) within 2 months from this date. The above facts are submitted for favour of consideration.”

¶61

¶62

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶63

Heard Sri.K.C. Santhosh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. R.S. Kalkura counsel appearing for the second respondent in O.P(C). No.1769 of 2016.

¶64

This peculiar suit has been filed by the wife against the Banks in which her Doctor-husband is having deposits and Savings Account restraining the Bank from disbursing the amount to the account holder on the ground that he is a mentally challenged person and be became mentally challenged because of over consumption of alcohol and drugs. It is also seen from the documents produced that the petitioner himself filed the application before the Court below stating that he is a sane person and he is capable of looking after his affairs and got himself impleaded as second defendant in all these cases and those petitions, after enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC, the court has allowed the applications and he was impleaded as additional second defendant in both the cases. His main grievance is that on account of the injunction application filed in both the cases, the Bank as well as the society are not disbursing the amount and he is an ailing person and he is finding it difficult even to meet his day to day expenses and also his treatment expenses. So that prompted him for filing these petitions. It is seen from the

¶65

¶66

O.P(C). Nos.1767/16 & 1769/16

¶67

report that the Munsiff will try to dispose of the applications within two months. But considering the peculiar circumstances, this Court feels that the petitions can be disposed of as follows :

¶68

The court below is directed to expedite disposal of I.A. No.874 of 2016 in O.S. No.211 of 2016 and I.A. 841 of 2016 in O.S. No.199 of 2016 both pending before the Munsiff Court Thalassery as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment.

¶69

If the petitioner moves an application for temporary arrangement for withdrawal of certain amounts, then the Court below is directed to expedite those applications also after hearing both sides, at any rate within 15 days of filing of that application.

¶70

With the above directions, the above petitions are disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this judgment to the court below immediately by Fax.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶73

sou.26/7.

Dr. K.P.v.Narayanan v. Chathoth Shuba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K.P.v.Narayanan v. Chathoth Shuba

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.Pareeth Vs M.N.Muraleedharan Nair

Gyanesh Kumar Vs M/S.Sundaram Finance Ltd.

M/S.a.R.& Company Vs M/S.R.Pradeep Kumar Wood Works

Abduraheem Vs Muhammed Thaha

K.John @ Ashok Vs Sadanan

Gowri Vs Sayujya Kuries Pvt. Ltd.