Allowed

Jose Joseph v. M/S. Traders Tower Constructions Property Developers Private Limited

Kerala HC20 Jun 2016OP(C)/765/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the dismissal of an application to serve interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 CPC. Respondents submitted readiness to answer. The High Court set aside the lower order and granted leave to serve interrogatories.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 set aside; leave granted to serve interrogatories to respondents 1 to 4.

Jose Joseph Vs M/S. Traders Tower Constructions Property… — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 765 of 2016 (O)

¶6

O.S.NO.589/2011 OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. JOSE JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.THOMMAN JOSEPH,KOCHUPURACKAL,

¶10

28/173,CHEVARAMBALAM PO, NELLIKKODE, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶11

2. C.P.USMAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KUNUTTY, SHAMANAS HOUSE, PANNIYAMKARA, KALLAI PO, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1.M/S.TRADERS TOWER CONSTRUCTIONS PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, DOOR NO.5/2486, "SWARACHITHRA", BANK ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 001.

¶15

2.APPACHAN @ P.D.ABRAHAM, S/O.DEVASSIA, AGED 60 YEARS,

¶16

"SWARGACHITHRA", BANK ROAD, KALATHIKUNNU AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 001.

¶17

3.P.A.SANEESH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.P.D.ABRAHAM, "SWARGACHITTARA", BANK ROAD, KALATHIKUNNATHU AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 001.

¶18

--2--

¶19

--2--

¶20

OP(C).No. 765 of 2016 (O)

¶21

4.MANEESH ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.P.D.ABRAHAM, "SWARGACHITTARA", BANK ROAD, KALATHIKUNNATHU AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 001.

¶22

5.KOCHIN SMART CITY PROPERTIES(PVT) LTD., "PEEVEES", TRITAN, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI -31, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.P.JOSE, CONVENT ROAD, KORATTI P.O.

¶23

R1 BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶24

SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R5 BY ADVS.SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR

¶25

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

mbr/

¶27

OP(C).No. 765 of 2016 (O)

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶30

P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.

¶31

P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.6.2015

¶32

P2A- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 30.1.2016

¶33

P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.589/2011.

¶34

P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.

¶35

P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 1.3.2015 IN CRIME NO.435/2013.

¶36

P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.9.2013 IN CC NO.388/2012.

¶37

P7TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 1.3.2014 IN OS NO.33/2014.

¶38

P8TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA NO.4610/20115.

¶39

P9TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.

¶40

P10- ORIGINAL OF ORDER DATED PASSED IN 9.2.2016 IN IA NO.4610/2015.

¶41

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K.HARILAL, J.

O.P.(C). No.765 of 2016

¶48

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2016

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.589/11

¶51

on the files of the II Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode as well as the petitioners in I.A. No.4610/15 filed therein. The suit is one for specific performance and I.A. No.4610/15 is filed by the petitioners herein under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to serve interrogatories to the defendants 1 to

¶52

After considering the objection raised by the respondents, the court below dismissed the said application on a finding that the application is filed without bona fides and the questions are irrelevant. The legality and propriety of the reasonings, whereby the court below dismissed the said application, are under challenge in this original petition.

¶53

The learned counsel for the respondents

¶54

OP(C).765/16 :2:

¶55

submit that they are ready to give answer to the interrogatories, notwithstanding the order rejecting the request of the petitioners.

¶56

In view of the above submission, Ext.P10 will stand set aside and the leave is granted as prayed for. The court below shall proceed further under Order XI Rule 1 of the C.P.C.

¶57

This original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶58

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶59

okb/21.6

Jose Joseph v. M/S. Traders Tower Constructions Property Developers Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Joseph v. M/S. Traders Tower Constructions Property Developers Private Limited

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

Fabian Sunny K. Vs P.I.Najeeb

K.Unni Madhavan Nair Vs Sree Narayana Investments

Omanayamma Vs State of Kerala

Lakshmipriya Vs Rajeesh L K

K.T.Jaffar Vs M/S.Essen Trading Company

Sandeep Bhasker Vs Sreeja Vijayaraghavan