Disposed

Abraham Thomas v. Kuriakose Mar Severious Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitian of the Knanaya Arach Diocese in Charge

Kerala HC29 Jul 2016OP(C)/1777/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed court below to expedite disposal of civil appeals and injunction applications. Court found service of notice was defective and that it was not cured. The High Court directed service to be completed and cases disposed of within two months from notice return or service completion, whichever is earlier.

What did the court decide?

Direction to court below to complete service and dispose appeals within two months from notice return or service completion.

Abraham Thomas Vs Kuriakose Mar Severious Arch… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1777 of 2016 ()

¶6

I.A. NO.1313/2016 IN O.S. NO.323/2016 AND IA. NO.1243/2016 IN CMA. NO.36/2016 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

ABRAHAM THOMAS, S/O M.T. THOMAS, MELAYIL HOUSE, THYMARAVUMKARA P.O, WEST OTHERA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SMT.S.ANJUSHA, SRI.B.C.MENON.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. KURIAKOSE MAR SEVERIOUS ARCH BISHOP AND CHIEF METROPOLITAN OF THE KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE IN CHARGE OF CHINGAVANAM AND GULF REGION, CHIGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 685 532.

¶12

2. KURIAKOSE MAR GREGORIOS, METROPOLITAN IN CHARGE OF KALLISSERRY DIVISION OF KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, BETH MAHRIN, VALLAMKULAM P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 541.

¶13

3. KURIAKOSE MAR IVANIOUS, IN CHARGE OF RANNI DIVISION OF KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESE, ANGASI P.O, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 674.

¶14

4. AYUB MAR SILVANOS, ARCH BISHOP OF THE KNANAYA AYRIAN CHURCHES IN AMERICA, CANADA & EUROPE, ARCH DIOCESE IN CHARGE OF CHIGAVANAM AND GULF REGION, C/O. MAR APREM SEMINARI, CHENGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM- 686 531.

¶15

OP(C).No. 1777 of 2016 ()

¶16

5. T.O ALEYAS, AGED 62 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA, SAMUDAYA TRUSTEE, THE MALANKARA SURIYANI KNANAYA ARCH DIOCESES AT MAR APREM SEMINARY, CHENGAVANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -686 531.

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2016, ALONG WITH OP(C) NO.1778 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

OP(C).No. 1777 of 2016 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.323/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF KALPANA DATED 23-01-2009.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF KALPANA NO.191/14 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(C).2455/2015 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF KALPANA OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 15-04-2016.
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF I.A NO.1313/2016 IN O.S 323/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF ORDER IN I.A NO.1313/2016 IN O.S. 323/2016.
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF CMA NO.36/2016 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF I.A.1243/2016 IN CMA NO.36/2016 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

O.P. (C) No.1777 of 2016 & O.P. (C) No.1778 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2016

¶30

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶31

O.P.No.1777/2016 was filed by the appellant in C.M.Appeal No.36/2016 pending before the District Court, Kottayam which was filed against the order in I.A.No.1313/2016 in O.S.No.323/2016 of Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. In the C.M.Appeal, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 petition for injunction and in that there was no interim order passed and the petitioner wants speedy disposal of that petition as well as C.M.Appeal in that case.

¶32

As far as O.P.(C)No.1778/2016 concerned, the petitioner is the appellant in CMA Nos.37/2016 and 38/2016 which were filed against the common order passed by the Additional Munsiff, Kottayam in I.A.No.330/2016 and 951/2016 in O.S.No.73/2016 of that court. The petitioner filed Exts.P11 and P12 injunction applications in these C.M.Appeals and court has not granted interim order, so they wanted the C.M.Appeal as well as the applications to be expedited at the earliest. So both these petitions have been filed seeking speedy disposal of the applications.

¶33

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that both these petitions can be disposed of after getting a status report from the court below regarding the cases. Accordingly reports have

¶34

O.P. (C) No.1777 of 2016 & O.P. (C) No.1778 of 2016

¶35

¶36

been called for and separate reports have been sent by the Additional District Judge before whom the cases are pending, which reads as follows:

¶37

In O.P.(C)No.1777/2016

¶38

“CMA No.36/2016 was filed by one Abraham Thomas against the order in I.A.No.951/2016 in O.S.73/2016 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The CMA was filed before the Hon'ble District Court on 16.07.2016 and the same was received by this court on 22.07.2016. On that day, notice was issued to the respondents (six in numbers) in the CMA as well as in I.A.1243/2016 for an order of temporary injunction and the case stands posted to 23.08.2016 for return of notice. Today when the case file is taken for the purpose of filing the report, it is seen that since steps taken by the petitioner for service of notice is defective, notice could not be sent and the defect was not cured so far. In the said circumstances, I may submit that two months time is required from the date of appearance of all the respondents (six in numbers) to dispose of the above CMA. Above remark is submitted as requested vide reference cited above.”

¶39

In O.P.(C)No.1778/2016

¶40

“CMA No.37/2016 was filed by one Abraham Thomas against the order in I.A.No.330/2016 in O.S.73/2016 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The CMA was filed before the Hon'ble District Court on 16.07.2016 and the same was received by this court on 22.07.2016. On that day, notice was issued to the respondents (six in numbers) in the CMA as well as in I.A.1244/2016 for an order of temporary injunction and the case stands posted to 23.08.2016 for return of notice. Today when the case file is taken for the purpose of filing the report, it is seen that since steps taken by the petitioner for service of notice is defective, notice could not be sent and the defect

¶41

O.P. (C) No.1777 of 2016 & O.P. (C) No.1778 of 2016

¶42

¶43

was not cured so far. In the said circumstances, I may submit that two months time is required from the date of appearance of all the respondents (six in numbers) to dispose of the above CMA. Above remark is submitted as requested vide reference cited above.”

¶44

When it was pointed out that steps is not completed and appearance has not been procured, the counsel for the petitioner in these cases submitted that he will try to take steps to complete the service and also to move the court below for service of notice on the counsel appearing for the parties in the lower court so as to avoid delay in disposal of these appeals. Under such circumstances, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶45

i) If the petitioner in these cases applies for service of notice on the counsel appearing for the respondents in the lower court to avoid delay, then court below is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in that application in accordance with law.

¶46

ii) The petitioner also directed to take earnest attempt to complete service of notice in the application as well as the C.M.Appeals, so that it will become ripe for hearing to enable the Additional District Judge, to dispose of the C.M.Appeals itself within a time frame.

¶47

O.P. (C) No.1777 of 2016 & O.P. (C) No.1778 of 2016

¶48

¶49

iii) The Additional District Judge before whom C.M.Appeal Nos.36/2016 to 38/2016 are pending is directed to take earnest attempt to expedite disposal of the appeals itself, after getting the records and completing service as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from 23.08.2016, on which date the cases are now posted for return of notice or within two months from the date of completion of service, which ever is earlier.

¶50

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.

¶51

With the above direction and observation, both the petitions are disposed of.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶54

Abraham Thomas v. Kuriakose Mar Severious Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitian of the Knanaya Arach Diocese in Charge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham Thomas v. Kuriakose Mar Severious Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitian of the Knanaya Arach Diocese in Charge

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

K.V. Josemon Vs Joshymon V.T.

Sheeba Raj Vs Baby Pathrose

Dr. Alexander Thomas Vs Mathew Alexander

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs Sunanda

Asha Mukundan Vs Anitha

Jose Vs Bindhu Muraleedharan