The High Court dismissed a petition seeking to keep a pending suit in abeyance until a challenge to an order under Section 10 CPC was decided. As the challenge was already dismissed by the Division Bench, the prayer was infructuous, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2528 of 2016 (O)
OS. NO.165/2011 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI.
PETITIONER(S):
1. MARIYA JASMINE, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. MAYIN, THATTAYIN HOUSE,
2. MUHAMMED AFSAL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, THATTAYIN HOUSE,
3. AJMAL (MINOR), AGED 16 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER - GUARDIAN MARIYA JASMINE, THATTAYIN HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM CHECK POST, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ULLATTIL HOUSE, KUTTIMUNDA, POOKATTUMANNA P.O., CHUNGATHARA AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4. ANSILLA (MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED, THATTAYIN HOUSE,
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. YOUSAF, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. YAKOOB, EENTHANKUZHIYAN HOUSE, ANAMARI, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 576.
OP(C).No. 2528 of 2016 (O)
2. MUHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ULLATTIL IBRAHIM, ULLATTIL HOUSE, KUTTIMUNDA, POOKATTUMANNA P.O., CHUNGATHARA AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 334.
R1 BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.T.SIVADASAN, SRI.SAJU.S.A.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. =================== O.P.(C). No.2528 of 2016
=============================
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
When the application came up for hearing today the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the order allowing the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was challenged before the Division Bench as O.P.(F.C) 558 of 2016 and that was heard and dismissed confirming the order passed by the Family Court which was produced before this Court as Ext.P5. The prayer in the petition was that the petitioner wants to challenge that order before appropriate forum, till then the suit O.S.165 of 2011 pending before Sub Court Manjerry between the same parties is directed to be kept in abeyance. So the prayer in the petition has become infructuous
The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the fact that the order passed by the Family Court has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, he is not prosecuting this petition and he is withdrawing that petition. So the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
O.P.(C).No.2528 of 2016 2
Interim order granted is vacated. Registry is directed to
communicate this order to the concerned immediately.
Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SKV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to maintain a petition seeking direction to keep a pending suit in abeyance when the challenge to the impugned order has already been decided by the Division Bench.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MARIYA JASMINE
MUHAMMED AFSAL
AJMAL
ANSILLA
YOUSAF
MUHAMMED
K.RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
