Dismissed

M/S.Kamakshy Constructions v. Rajesh Gopalakrishnan

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016OP(C)/362/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Sub Court's direction to dispose of an application for modification of property attachment along with the main suit. The High Court held that since the attachment order was already upheld by a Division Bench, it could not be challenged. Finding no fault in the Sub Judge's observation, the Court directed the Sub Judge to dispose of the application by the time the suit jud

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Sub Judge to dispose of the application for modification along with the suit judgment.

M/S.Kamakshy Constructions Vs Rajesh Gopalakrishnan — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 362 of 2016 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/1/2016 IN IA NO. 136/2016 IN OS NO. 113/2014 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

1. M/S.KAMAKSHY CONSTRUCTIONS PAZHAYANADAKKAVU, THRISSUR-680001 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER R.PARAMESWARAN AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.P.RAMASWAMI, KATTUPARAMBU MADAM METHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶9

2. R.PARAMESWARAN

¶10

S/O.P.RAMASWAMI, KATTUPARAMBU MADAM, METHALA VILLAGE DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

1. RAJESH GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O.V.G.PODHUVAL, CHANDRA VILLA, THRISSUR VILLAGE EAST FORT DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680 005.

¶14

2. GEETHANJALI RAJESH

¶15

W/O.RAJESH GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHANDRA VILLA THRISSUR VILLAGE, EAST FORT DESOM THRISSUR TALUK-680 005.

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

OP(C).No. 362 of 2016 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT, OS NO.113/2014 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR DT. NIL.

¶23

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, FAO NO.127/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶24

EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13-3-2015 IN IA 556/2015 IN OS.NO. 113/2014 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶25

EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 2-12-2015 IN FAO NO.127/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶26

EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA 136/2016 DT. 7-1-2016 IN OS. 113/2014 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶27

EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 14-1-2016 IN IA 136/2016 IN OS 113/2014 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶33

O.P.(C) No.362 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.113/14 of

¶37

Sub Court, Thrissur. On the application of the respondents/ plaintiffs to attach 10 items of properties the Sub Court attached 3 items of properties under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The order of attachment was challenged by the petitioners in FAO No.127/15. This Court upheld the order of attachment. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application styled as request to modify the order. The learned Sub Judge has observed that the application can be disposed of along with the suit as the suit is ripe for trial. This is challenged.

¶38

Heard.

¶39

As mentioned earlier, the order of attachment cannot be challenged now. In fact, in the application for modification, what the petitioners have alleged is that it was not necessary to attach the three items of properties.

¶40

O.P.(C) No.362 of 2016 2

¶41

It is true that the Division Bench has observed that the petitioners are at liberty to file an application for modification of the order of attachment. It is submitted that this court has already passed an order directing the learned Sub Judge to dispose of the suit before the court closes for summer vacation in 2016.

¶42

In these circumstances I cannot find fault with the observation of the learned Sub Judge that the application for modification also can be considered along with the suit. It is sufficient to direct the learned Sub Judge to dispose of the application at or before the judgment is pronounced.

¶43

In the result, this original petition is disposed of with the above observation.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

STK

¶46

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A. JUDGE

M/S.Kamakshy Constructions v. Rajesh Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Kamakshy Constructions v. Rajesh Gopalakrishnan

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

Sudheer Bose Vs Shajahan

Yagasthala Educational Trust of India Vs the South Indian Bank

M.R.Gopi Vs Kochuthressia

Vipin @ Lal Vs State of Kerala

James Vs Laisa

Venu Vs Prasanth