Disposed

P.G.Ajitha v. C.M.Divakaran

Kerala HC5 Dec 2016OP(C)/2920/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two original civil petitions filed under Article 227, directing the District Court to expedite a transfer petition and instructing the Munsiff Court to dispose of a pending injunction application within one month, depending on the transfer outcome.

What did the court decide?

Ordered District Court to expedite transfer disposal; Ordered Munsiff Court to dispose of injunction within one month.

P.G.Ajitha Vs C.M.Divakaran — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/14TH AGRAHA3YANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2920 of 2016 (O)

¶6

TR.P(C) 176/2016 OF DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1. P.G.AJITHA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.K.S.BALAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.29/31B NEAR OEN KANNANKULANGARA, NADAM THEKKUBHAGAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, THRIPUNITHURA - 682 301.

¶9

2. K.S.BALAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.29/31B NEAR OEN KANNANKULANGARA, NADAM THEKKUBHAGAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, THRIPUNITHURA - 682 301.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶11

SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR SRI.P.C.SHIJIN

¶12

SMT.ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶14

1. C.M.DIVAKARAN, AGED AT ABOUT 55 YERS, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, CHACKANIKKUNNEL HOUSE, CHELIMADA KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE - 685 532.

¶15

2. DIVIN, AGED AT ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O.C.M.DIVAKARAN, CHACKANIKKUNNEL HOUSE, CHELIMADA KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE - 685 532.

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2016, ALONG WITH OPC. 2921/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

OP(C).No. 2920 of 2016

¶19

-----------------------

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT IN EP.NO.23/2016 DTD.9.9.2016.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.232/2016 DTD.22.9.2016.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION FILED AS I.A.NO.1233/2016 DTD.22.9.2016.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER PETITION TR.P.(C) NO.176/2016 OF DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA DTD.4.10.2016.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.155/2012 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA DTD.19.7.2012.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶29

O.P.(C) No.2920 of 2016 & O.P.(C) No.2921 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

These petitioners were filed by the petitioners who are respondents in Tr.P.(C)176/2016 on the file of the District Court, Thodupuzha and defendants in O.S.232/2016 of Munsiff Court, Peermade, both under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking speedy disposal.

¶33

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners who are wife and husband are plaintiffs in suit for injunction against the respondents. The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.232/2016 of Munsiff Court, Peermade which was filed by them for injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into the property. The first respondent herein filed O.S.155/2012 before Sub Court, Kattappana for specific performance of an agreement to sale. The petitioners filed O.S.29/2000 before the Sub Court, Kattappana for partition and separate possession of their property, against the brother of the first petitioner and a decree has been passed and the property was obtained in execution of that decree in E.P.23/2016 of Sub Court, Kattappana evidenced by Ext.P1. Though earlier two different suits were filed, subsequently those suits were withdrawn and first respondent filed O.S.155/2012 seeking specific performance of the

¶34

¶35

O.P.(C) No.2920 of 2016 & O.P.(C) No.2921 of 2016

¶36

contract said to have been entered into between the first petitioner and the first respondent. Respondents filed Tr.P(C)176/2016 before the District Court, Thodupuzha for transferring O.S.232/2016 pending before Munsiff Court, Peermade to Sub Court, Kattappana. The petitioner filed I.A.1233/2016 in O.S.232/2016 for injunction, but injunction was not granted, since the respondent filed caveat, but that application was not disposed of so far. The Munsiff Court is not disposing the injunction application on account of the pendency of the transfer petition before the District Court, Thodupuzha and there was a stay of proceedings ordered by the district court. So under such circumstances, the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court seeking a direction to the District Court, Thodupuzha to expedite disposal of Tr.P.(C) pending before that court and directing the Munsiff Peermade to pass appropriate orders in the injunction application.

¶37

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court has call for a report from District Court, Thodupuzha and also from Munsiff Court, Peermade and they have sent independent reports in those cases, which reads as follows:

¶38

Report from District Court, Thodupuzha:

¶39

¶40

O.P.(C) No.2920 of 2016 & O.P.(C) No.2921 of 2016

¶41

“In obedience to the direction in the O.M. cited above, I may report that, OP(Transfer) No.176/2016 filed on 06.10.2016 by Sri.C.M.Divakaran S/o.Madhavan and Sri.Dipin S/o.C.M.Divakaran as petitioners with a prayer to transfer, O.S.No.232/2016 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Peermade to the Sub Court, Kattappana for trying the above case along with O.S.155/2012 of Sub Court, Kattappana. A petition numbered as IA 1012/2016 for staying all the further proceedings in O.S.232/2016 of the Munsiff Court, Peermade is also filed along with the O.P.

¶42

Both OP (Transfer) 176/2016 and IA 1012/2016 are considered on 07.10.2016 and an interim stay was ordered as prayed in the IA and both O.P. and I.A. are posted for return of notice to 02.12.2016.

¶43

Further I may report that at least one month time may be required for disposal of the petition.

¶44

Report is submitted for favour of necessary action”.

¶45

Report from Munsiff Court, Peermade:

¶46

“With reference to the above, I may report that IA.1233/2016 in OS 232/2016 of this court, is posted for the objection of respondents on 16.12.2016. It is also reported that OP(Transfer) 176/2016 of the District Court, Thodupuzha is pending and the same is posted on 02.12.2016. I may request that one month time may be granted to dispose the application.”

¶47

Heard Sri.P.Haridas, counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the report in both the cases.

¶48

It is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein filed O.S.232/2016 before the Munsiff Court, Peermade for injunction against the respondents herein and also filed I.A.1233/2016 for interim injunction and since the respondents have filed a caveat, interim exparte injunction was not granted and notice was ordered to the caveator. In the meantime respondents earlier filed O.S.152/2012

¶49

¶50

O.P.(C) No.2920 of 2016 & O.P.(C) No.2921 of 2016

¶51

before the Sub Court, Kattappana for specific performance of the contract said to have been entered into between them and the first petitioner herein. According to them, since these two suites have to be tried by the same court, the respondents herein filed Tr.P.(C)176/2016 before the District Court, Thodupuzha for transferring O.S.232/2016 pending before the Munsiff Court, Peermade to Sub Court, Kattappana to be tried along with O.S.155/2012 pending before Sub Court, Kattappana. It is also seen from the report that, the District judge has stayed the proceedings in O.S.232/2016 of Munsiff Court, Peermade. So under such circumstances, the Munsiff, Peermade cannot be blamed for not disposing the injunction application filed by the petitioner. So under such circumstances, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of on the basis of the reports submitted from the respective courts.

¶52

The District Court, Thodupuzha is directed to expedite disposal of Tr.P.(C)176/2016 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. The Munsiff, Peermade is directed to expedite disposal of the injunction application within one month from the date of receipt of the order in Tr.P.(C)176/2016 of District Court, Thodupuzha, if the

¶53

¶54

O.P.(C) No.2920 of 2016 & O.P.(C) No.2921 of 2016

¶55

transfer is not allowed. If transfer is allowed, then the transferee court after getting records dispose of the injunction application after hearing both sides as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of appearance of the parties before that court.

¶56

With the above direction and observation the petitions are disposed of.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶59

//True Copy//

¶60

P.A. to Judge

¶61

P.G.Ajitha v. C.M.Divakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.G.Ajitha v. C.M.Divakaran

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

Narayanaswamy Vs Mani

B.Sarojam Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Favas Vs Basheer

Hariprasad.K Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Sandeep Yadav Jadhav Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

A.Aneesh Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.