Dismissed

Lawrence Joseph v. Francis Joseph

Kerala HC28 Jun 2016OP(C)/289/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an original petition challenging the dismissal of an interlocutory application by the trial court. The petitioner sought production of partnership deeds from respondents. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding the relief not maintainable due to lack of petitioner's diligence and absence of material showing respondents possessed originals.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's challenge to the order dismissing the application to produce合伙 deeds was rejected; the impugned order was implicitly upheld by disposing of the original petition.

Lawrence Joseph Vs Francis Joseph — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 289 of 2015 (O)

¶6

OS.919/2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

LAWRENCE JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O LATE V.L. JOSEPH, VELUTHOOKKARAN HOUSE, PLOT NO:17, CHEROOTTY NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, PUTHIYARA PO:673004, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTD BY POWER OF ATTORNEY CLETUS VARKEY THEKKATH, S/O LATE B.K. VARKEY M., AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLUE BELL, TC 33/696, BRAHMAKULATHU THEKKATH HOUSE, VELIYANNOR P.O.- 680001, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SMT.AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. FRANCIS JOSEPH, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O LATE V.L. JOSEPH, VELUTHOOKKARAN HOUSE, CHEROOTTY NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, PUTHIYARA PO: 673004, KALATHIKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

2. MARY JOSEPH, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O LATE V.L. JOSEPH, VELUTHOOKKARAN HOUSE, CHEROOTTY NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, PUTHIYARA PO: 673004, KALATHIKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

3. LISSY JOHNY, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O C.P.JOHNY, 27/2655, CHIRAYANKANDATH HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA PO, 682010, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

4. SHOBHA DAVIS, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O P.K. DAVIS, POTTOKKARAN HOUSE, UNITY NAGAR, THRISSUR-68006.

¶15

5. CELINE YOHANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O YOHANNAN, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSING COLONY, BEPOOT PO. 673028, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶16

R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY R BY JOBY JACOB PULICKAKUDY

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

OP(C).No. 289 of 2015 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY IA 5383/2014 IN OS 919/2010 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, THRISSUR.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.10.2014 ON EXT.P1.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K.HARILAL, J.

O.P.(C). No.289 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶34

This original petition has been filed challenging

¶35

the order passed by the Sub Court, Thrissur in I.A. No. 5383/14 in O.S.No.919/10. The above original suit is filed for dissolution of the partnership firm and the partnership of the movable and immovable properties of the firm. The aforesaid interlocutory application

¶36

was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the three documents mentioned in the I.A. After considering the objection filed by the respondents, the court below found that the relief sought for in the I.A. is not maintainable, particularly, when the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the suit diligently. The legality or the reasonings whereby the court below dismissed the application is under challenge in this original

¶37

OP(C).289/15 :2:

¶38

petition.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

Going by Ext.P1 application filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner himself has produced a copy of the partnership deed which is required to be produced by the respondents. It is stated that the original of the partnership deed should be with the respondents/defendants and more probably with the 1^st defendant. It shows that the petitioner himself is not sure as to the person with whom the original partnership deed remains now.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the defendants are having separate defence and the 3^rd respondent has not accepted the contention that the firm is a registered partnership firm. If it is a registered partnership firm, even if the original is not available with the petitioner, he can

¶42

OP(C).289/15 :3:

¶43

obtain and produce the certified copy of the partnership deed or deed of dissolution, if any, as alleged by the 3^rd defendant from the Office of the Registrar to show that such a firm was registered under the Act or dissolved as alleged by the 3^rd defendant. After considering the sequence of events from the very beginning of the suit, the court below found that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case and once the case was listed for trial and at that time, the plaintiff was not prepared to adduce any evidence and dismissed on default, subsequently, restored by the Appellate court and now the present application is filed without bona fides.

¶44

In the absence of any material to show that the defendants are in possession of the original deeds mentioned in the application, the trial court cannot compel them to produce the same. Therefore, the trial court is justified in rejecting the application. I do not

¶45

OP(C).289/15 :4:

¶46

find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

¶47

This original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶49

okb./29.6

Lawrence Joseph v. Francis Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lawrence Joseph v. Francis Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sivaraman Vs M.Sankarankutty

Ramachandra Bhat and Others Vs K.Thirumaleshwara Prasanna

Madhavan Vs Bhagyam Kuries (P) Ltd.

Rajani Mol Vs Ajayan

Thankappan Vs Govindan Potti

Kumari Vs Sasi