Disposed

Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram v. Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016OP(C)/2262/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought intervention under Article 227 to expedite disposal of an interim injunction application and maintain status quo. The Court directed the lower court to dispose within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta to dispose of I.A.1682/2016 within two months and to maintain the status quo.

Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2262 of 2016 (O)

¶6

--------------------------OS.NO.202/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. THIRUVARANMULA MOOLASTHANAM VILAKKUMADAM KOTTARAM SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, NO.PTM/TC/303/2013, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY (2ND AND 3RD PETITIONER)

¶9

2. G.THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 76 YEARS, VILAKKUMADATHINKALAYA-KALLAUPALAYATHINKAL, EDAYARANMULA MURI, ARNAMULA VILLAGE,

¶10

KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. RAVEENDRAN NAIR K.T.,

¶12

AGED 47 YEARS, S/O THANKAPPAN NAIR, VILAKKUMADATHINKALAYA-KALLAUPALAYATHINKAL,

¶13

EDAYARANMULA MURI, ARNAMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. EDAYARANMULA THIRUVARANMULA MOOLASTHANAM VILAKKUMADOM KOTTARAM SAMRAKSHANA TRUST, EDAYARANMULA, ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY.

¶17

2. M.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,

¶18

S/O P.MADHAVAN NAIR, KRISHNA KRIPA, KOLLETH HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA P.O., ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (PRESIDENT).

¶19

2/-

¶20

-2-

¶21

OP(C).NO.2262/2016

¶22

3. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, S/O LATE NARAYANAN PILLAI, KAVUMKAL, ARANMULA VILLAGE, EDAYARANMULA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (SECRETARY).

¶23

R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SMT.V.A.HARITHA SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR

¶24

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

sts

¶26

OP(C).No. 2262 of 2016 (O)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 202/2014 OF MUNSIF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶30

EXHIBITP2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OS 202/2014

¶31

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF IA 988/2014 IN OS 202/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶32

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF IA 1681/2016 IN OS 202/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶33

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF IA 1682/2016 IN OS 202/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶34

EXHIBIT P6 A PHTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING SITUATED IN PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY OF OS 202/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT PATHANAMTHITTA

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶41

O.P. (Civil) No.2262 of 2016

¶42

------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2016

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this court by giving direction to the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta to expedite disposal of I.A.1682/2016 in O.S.204/2014 of that court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are the defendants in Ext.P1 suit O.S.202/2014 pending before the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta filed by the respondents herein. They filed Ext.P2 written statement. Plaintiff also filed Ext.P3 application as I.A.988/2016 for interim injunction and no interim orders were passed in that application. Thereafter when they tried to demolish the 'Kottaram' situated in the plaint schedule property and make new constructions taking advantage of the onam vacation, the petitioners preferred an application for advance the case and for interim injunction as Exts.P4 and P5 I.A.1681/2016 and 1682/2016 and both these applications were being adjourned without passing any orders, though the respondents have filed objection to the same. They produced Ext.P6 photograph of the building which will go to show that there is no necessity to demolish the building immediately. So the petitioners have no other option except to approach this court seeking the following

¶46

O.P. (Civil) No.2262 of 2016

¶47

¶48

reliefs:

¶49

i. To direct Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta to dispose of IA No.1682/2016 in OS No.202/2014 on the file of the said court as expeditiously as possible and to direct the respondents herein to maintain status quo as on today with respect to the plaint scheduled properties in OS 202/14 of the Munsiffs Court, Pathanamthitta till the afore mentioned IA is disposed of.

¶50

ii. Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

¶51

The respondents entered appearance. Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court has called for a report from the court below regarding the present stage of the applications and time required for disposal of that application. Accordingly a report has been called for and the Munsiff Pathanamthitta has sent a report which reads as follows:

¶52

“It is respectfully submitted that IA No.1682/2016 in OS 202/14 is an application filed by the defendants on 05.09.2016 for temporary injunction. The suit was posted to 19.08.2016 and as there was no sitting on 19.08.16, the case stands adjourned by notification to 01.11.16. The respondents have to file objection and the IA has to be heard. In these circumstances, I humbly submit that two months time may be required for disposal of IA 1682/2016. These remarks are respectfully submitted for kind consideration.”

¶53

Heard Sri.George Sebastian, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Sreekumar, counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶54

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, they want only a direction to be given for speedy disposal of those applications. The counsel for the respondent has no objection for the same.

¶55

O.P. (Civil) No.2262 of 2016

¶56

¶57

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of on the basis of the report submitted by the court below. At the time of admitting the petition, an interim order passed by this court directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the present stage of the building in the plaint schedule property till I.A.1682./2016 is disposed of by the court below. Under such circumstances, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of after accepting the report of the court below as follows:

¶58

The Munsiff, Pathanamthitta is directed to expedite disposal of I.A.1682/2016 in O.S.203/2014 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment as there is no regular munsiff for that court and another presiding officer in charge of that court. In the mean time the status quo passed by this court regarding the present stage of the building till disposal of I.A.1682/2016 is directed to be kept in force.

¶59

With the above direction and observation the petition is disposed of.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge) //True Copy//

¶62

P.A. to Judge

¶63

Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram v. Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram v. Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom

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

Kusalakumari Vs Viswambharan

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Gheevarghese Kuruvila Vs Sunnykutty

Chimmandi Sree Neelakeshi Kunnathukal Vs Nadarajan Nair

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs Lilly

Anilkumar R Vs Subhash Chandran