Allowed

Mariamma R. @ Mariamma Daniel v. Devi Nagar

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016OP(C)/1923/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an original petition under Article 227 directing the District Munsiff Court to expedite disposal of two connected original suits involving property and injunctions within nine months, considering the petitioner's age as a senior citizen, after the lower court assured timeline compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Munsiff (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of O.S.No.466/2014 and 409/2014 within nine months, after completing pre-trial steps, with parties to cooperate.

Mariamma R. @ Mariamma Daniel Vs Devi Nagar — 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 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1923 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OS NO. 466/2014 AND OS 409/2014 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFFS 2 & 3:

¶8

1. MARIAMMA R. @ MARIAMMA DANIEL

¶9

AGED 81 YEARS, D/O. RAHEL, RESIDING AT TC 10/656, HOUSE NO.56, DEVI NAGAR, PEROORKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. SHYLA DANIEL AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. DANIEL ZACHARIAH, RESIDING AT TC 10/656, HOUSE NO.56, DEVI NAGAR, PEROORKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.JAMES KURIAN SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS :

¶13

1. DEVI NAGAR IDAKKULAMKAROORKONAM ROAD, VIKASANA SAMITHI, DEVI NAGAR, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, PIN-695 005.

¶14

2. RAJESH KUMAR O.S.

¶15

S/O. SADASIVAN NAIR, PARIJATHAM, TC 10/868, HOUSE NO.59, DEVI NAGAR, PEROORKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

¶16

3. SREEKUMARI

¶17

D/O. SANHAKUMARI, TC 22/901, ANIZHAM, DEVI NAGAR-40, PEROORKADA-695 005, FROM TC 10/799, SANTHI BHAVAN, PUTHICHAKKONAM MURI, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

OP(C).No. 1923 of 2016 (O)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1:	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.466/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 6.3.2014.
EXHIBIT P2:	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.409/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 28.2.2014.
EXHIBIT P3:	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20.5.2015 IN IA NO.2109 OF 2014 IN OS NO.409 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P4:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22.7.2015 IN CMA NO.70 OF 2015.
EXHIBIT P5:	COPY OF THE B-DIARY PROCEEDINGS OF OS NO.409/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6:	COPY OF THE B-DIARY PROCEEDINGS OF OS NO.466/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS : NIL.
	//TRUE COPY//
	P.A. TO JUDGE

¶24

bp

¶25

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

O.P.(C) No.1923 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This original petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the court below to dispose of O.S.No.466/2014 and O.S.No.409/2014 pending before the Additional Munsiff Court (Rent Control Court), Thiruvananthapuram at the earliest under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that, Ext.P1 suit namely O.S.No.466/2014 was filed by Daniel Sacariah and his wife Mariamma Daniel, who is the first petitioner herein to recover possession of certain properties said to have been encroached upon by respondents 1 and 2 herein and also for fixation of boundary and put up boundary. After the death of Daniel Sacariah, who was the first plaintiff in that suit, second petitioner herein was impleaded as additional third plaintiff as his legal heir along with the first petitioner. The third respondent herein filed O.S.No.409/2014 before the same court against the petitioners and others for permanent prohibitory injunction and joint trail were ordered of both the suits. In O.S.No.409/2014, injunction application filed by the third respondent herein, which was dismissed as per Ext.P2 order and that was confirmed as per Ext.P4 judgment in C.M.A.No.70/2015 of District Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶31

O.P.(C) No.1923 of 2016

¶32

¶33

The first petitioner is an aged person and she want early disposal of the case. So the present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

2) to direct the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of O.S.No.466/2014 and O.S.No.409/2014 within a time frame fixed by this court; and

¶35

b) to grant such other reliefs which are deemed fit and proper for the ends of justice.

¶36

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after getting a report from the concerned court regarding the present stage and time required for disposal of the case and dispensing with notice to the respondents. Accordingly a report has been called for and the learned Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram sent a report which reads as follows:

¶37

“Referring to the above, I may most respectfully submit that the Original Suits 466/2014 and 409/2014 on the file of this court are injunction suits. Both are connected matters and joint trial petition is posted for hearing. The plaintiff in O.S.409/2014 has filed a petition I.A.8992/14 to implead Additional 5^th and 6^th defendants as the legal heirs of 3^rd defendant. That application is also posted for hearing on 19.08.2016. The plaintiff in O.S.466/2014 has filed an I.A.8567/2015 to direct the commissioner Advocate to file a detailed report which stands allowed and the commissioner is directed to consider the matters sought by the defendants as well. The plaintiffs has filed another I.A.3556/2016 to review the above order which is also posted for objection and hearing on 19.08.2016. In the above circumstances I most humbly request that nine months time is necessary to dispose of both suits.”

¶38

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Sri.James Kurian and

¶39

perused the report.

¶40

O.P.(C) No.1923 of 2016

¶41

¶42

It is seen from the report that after the death of the third defendant in O.S.No.409/2014, died and additional respondents 5 and 6 were impleaded as his legal heir. Plaintiff in O.S.466/2014 has filed I.A.No.8567/2015 to issue direction to the Advocate Commission to file a detailed report and that was allowed and the plaintiff also filed another I.A.No.3556/2016 to review the above order and that is posted for objection. That shows that pre-trial steps in the case has not been over and the plaintiffs themselves were not satisfied with the orders obtained in the application filed to issue Advocate Commission and they themselves filed an application to review and that petition is pending. So without completing the pre-trial steps, it is not possible for the court to proceed with the trial of the suit. However the learned Munsiff has expressed willingness to dispose of the case within nine months. So considering the circumstances and also considering the the fact that the first petitioner is aged 81 years and a senior citizen, some leniency must be shown in considering the cases involving of senior citizens. This court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶43

The Additional Munsiff (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram is directed to expedite disposal of O.S.No.466/2014and 409/2014 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible at any rate within nine months from the date of

¶44

O.P.(C) No.1923 of 2016

¶45

¶46

receipt of the judgment as undertaken in the report after completing the pre-trial steps in accordance with law. The parties are also directed to co-operate with the court in expeditious disposal of the case. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.

¶47

With the above direction and observation, the original petition is

¶48

disposed of.

¶49

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶50

//True Copy//

¶51

P.A. to Judge

¶52

Mariamma R. @ Mariamma Daniel v. Devi Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariamma R. @ Mariamma Daniel v. Devi Nagar

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

Shahul Hameed M.P. Vs Sudheesh Kumar

Antony.S Vs Roney Alex

Jathavedan Unni @ Jathavedan Namboothiri Vs Hari @ Damodaran Namboothiri

Rev. C.Chrispus Vs Rev. M.Robinson

Thachedath Raghavan Vs Thachedath Gopalan

Shajna Beevi Vs Mytheen Kannu