Madhavan v. Parimalam
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition under Article 227 sought to quash an order in a civil trial and expedite the suit's disposal. The court also sought status on a stay order. The court declined interference but directed the lower court to expedite disposal within one month after including the case in a special list.
What did the court decide?
The first relief of quashing the order is declined. Munsiff, Chavakkad is directed to expedite disposal within one month by including the case in a special list.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2115 of 2016 (O)
CMA 18/2015 IN OS 1059/2012 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD
---------
PETITIONER(S):
MADHAVAN
S/O.KATTISSERY AYYAPPANKUTTY VAILATHUR AMSOM, NJAMANANGAD DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK.
BY ADVS.SMT.K.NANDINI SRI.BINU BOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent orders of the lower court under Article 227.
Whether the lower court should expedite the disposal of the suit pending before it.
Whether the stay order on the suit has been vacated following the disposal of the related appeal.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Madhavan S/O.KATTISSERY AYYAPPANKUTTY
- respondent
Varalarz Parimalam
- respondent
Radhakrishnan S/O.THAYYIL NARAYANAN
- respondent
Pavanan S/O.THAYYIL NARAYANAN
- respondent
Velayudhan S/O.THAYYIL NARAYANAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court