Partly allowed

Soman v. Noufal

Kerala HC27 Jan 2016OP(C)/94/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of this original civil petition by setting aside the impugned order. It allowed the petitioner's amendment application, mandated its implementation within one week, and directed the trial court to expedite specific interlocutory applications and file an additional written statement by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Amendment allowed; impugned order set aside; trial court directed to expediate IA No.2449 of 2014 and file additional written statement by respondents.

Soman Vs Noufal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/7TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 94 of 2016 (O)

¶6

(I.A.NO.4716/2015 IN O.S.NO.540/2014 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA)

¶7

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

SOMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, VELAMPARAMBU, NORTH ARYADU MURI, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1. NOUFAL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU, MADINA MANZIL, NORTH ARYADU MURI, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA -688 542

¶12

2. SHEMIMOL, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.NOUFAL, MADINA MANZIL, NORTH ARYADU MURI, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA- 688 542

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

OP(C).No. 94 of 2016 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.540/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA DT. 28.06.2014

¶20

P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17.06.2015 IN CMA NO.27/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE- II, ALAPUZHA

¶21

P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA.NO.4716/2015 IN OS.NO.540/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA DT. 04.12.2015

¶22

P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA.NO.4716/2015 IN OS.NO.540/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA DT. 09.12.2015

¶23

P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.12.2015 IN IA.NO. 4716/2015 IN OS.NO.540/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

======================= O.P.(C) No.94 of 2016

¶31

============================

¶32

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

1.When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was submitted that the respondents have no objection to the amendment application filed by the petitioner in the trial court being allowed. But, they wanted a direction to the trial court to dispose of I.A No.2449 of 2014 without delay.

¶35

In the result, this original petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order. The amendment application filed by the petitioner is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within one week from today, failing which it will stand dismissed. The trial court shall dispose of I.A No.2449 of 2014 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Meanwhile the respondents shall file additional written statement and the petitioner shall take other steps also, if necessary. The trial court shall try to dispose of the suit itself without delay.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE

¶38

vdv/28/01/16

Soman v. Noufal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soman v. Noufal

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

Sugesh Vs Poovadan Karunakaran

Pathumma Vs Janardhanan

Dharmarajan V.K. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

V.K.Abdul Salam Vs Nabeesa

A.K.Asharaff Vs Joseph

Ancy George Vs Ajitha Biju