Dismissed

Radhamani Ammal v. U.R.Sethulakshmy

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016OP(C)/2510/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed an order copy petition seeking advance hearing on applications to vacate injunction. Court observed no representation was received and applications are pending consent with lower court. Court declined to pass any order in the present petition and directed court below to consider applications on advance hearing if petitioners move appropriately.

What the court decided

AI extract

Radhamani Ammal Vs U.R.Sethulakshmy — 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

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2510 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OS.NO.1262/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS:-:

¶8

1. RADHAMANI AMMAL, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAJAPPAN ACHARI, THALAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY, SOUTH VILLAGE, KOCHI-25.

¶9

2. SREEKUMAR,

¶10

S/O.LATE RAJAPPAN ACHARI, THALAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KOCHI-25.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.SREEJITH SRI.C.E.DOMINY

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS:-:

¶13

1. U.R.SETHULAKSHMY,

¶14

AGED 59 YEARS, H.NO.32/883, PUTHENMADAM, PALLISSERI ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682025.

¶15

2. P.R.VASUDEVAN,

¶16

AGED 50 YEARS, H.NO.32/883, PUTHENMADAM, PALLISSERI ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.

¶17

3. U.R.RAMACHANDRAN,

¶18

AGED 55 YEARS, H.NO.32/883, PUTHENMADAM, PALLISSERI ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.

¶19

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

OP(C).No. 2510 of 2016 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED IN OS.NO.1262/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT IN IA.NO.7145/2016 IN OS.NO.1262/2016.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT-P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE COCHIN CORPORATION. EXHIBIT-P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT-P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXHIBIT-P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO SANKER PHARMA, PALLISSERY ROAD BY THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT-P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE KVAT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE M/S.SANKAR PHARMA, PALLISSERY ROAD. EXHIBIT-P9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED FROM THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT-P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN IA.NO.7145/16 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT-P11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED FOR VACATING THE INTERIM INJUNCTION AS IA.NO.7291/16 IN O.S.NO.1262/16. EXHIBIT-P12: THE TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN IA.NO.7145/16 IN O.S.NO.1262/16.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶33

O.P.(C) No.2510 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

No representation for the petitioner even on the last hearing date. A report has been obtained from the court below stating that the impugned I.A.7291/2016 and I.A.7145/2016 are posted along with the suit with the consent of the parties. So under such circumstances, this court feels that, there is no necessity to pass any orders in this application and if the petitioner is aggrieved for not passing any orders in the application, vacating the interim order, the petitioner is at liberty to move the court below itself for advance hearing and pass appropriate orders in that application. If such an application is filed, the court below is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in that application in accordance with law.

¶37

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

¶38

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the court below immediately.

¶39

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

¶42

P.A. to Judge

Radhamani Ammal v. U.R.Sethulakshmy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Radhamani Ammal v. U.R.Sethulakshmy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sailendranatha Pillai K.S Vs Karunakara Prabhu

Satheesh Chandran Vs Velu

Katalappurath Lakshmi Vs Paipparambath Janardhanan

Ancy Babu Vs Celinamma Joseph

Riya K. Chacko Vs Boby Varkey

Vineetha Vs Vijesh.P.T