Partly allowed

T.P.Abdul Hameed v. Abdul Khaddar

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016RP/581/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition challenging an order granting time to file an objection to a Commission Report and directing disposal of a suit, the High Court deleted the direction to file a fresh objection and pay costs, relying on a report that an objection was filed earlier, but rejected the prayer for an extension of time for the suit's disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file an objection to the Commission Report on or before 15/7/2016 and cost of Rs.3,500/- to respondents 1 to 3 was deleted; request for extension of time for disposal of the suit was reje

T.P.Abdul Hameed Vs Abdul Khaddar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938 RP.No. 581 of 2016 () IN OP(C).1332/2016

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1332/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08-06-2016

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ADDL.PLAINTIFFS NOS 2 TO 5:

¶7

1. T.P.ABDUL HAMEED,AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.M.H.PICHAKANNU RATHER,

¶8

THYKOOTTATHIL-SALINS, CHANAGANACHERRY VILLAGE,

¶9

CHANAGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 101.

¶10

2. T.P.MEHBOOB,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.M.H.PICHAKANNU RATHER,

¶11

THYKOOTTATHIL-SALINS, CHANAGANACHERRY VILLAGE,

¶12

CHANAGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686101.

¶13

3. T.P.LAILA, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.M.H.PICHAKANNU RATHER,

¶14

AMITHA MANZIL,PERUMBAIKDAU VILLGE, KUMARNELLUR.P.O, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 106.

¶15

4. T.P.JAMEELA,AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.M.H.PICHAKANNUR RATHER,

¶16

CHATHUPUZHA HOUSE, PUZHAVATH KARA CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANANGANACHERRY TALUK,

¶17

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 101.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.

¶19

.......2

¶20

-2-

¶21

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶22

1. ABDUL KHADDAR, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.SAYED MUHAMMED,

¶23

PUTHUVATHARA KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶24

2. AHAMMED KUTTY (DIED), S/O.KUNJU VAVA, THONDUPARAMBIL

¶25

HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,

¶26

NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶27

3. ABDUL KHADDAR,

¶28

S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU,

¶29

PUTHUVATHARA PUTHENPURAIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶30

4. AHAMMED BEEVI AMMA (DIED), W/O.AHAMMED KUTTY(DIED),

¶31

THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶32

5. ZEENATH, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶33

6. THAMBI, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. AHAMMED KUTTY,

¶34

THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶35

` 7. JAMEELA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶36

8. MUMTHAZ, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. AHAMMD KUTTY, THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶37

.....3

¶38

-3-

¶39

9. REJI, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶40

10. IFTHAKKAR AHAMMED, AGED 47, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶41

11. SABITHA, AGED 43, D/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA MURI,NEDUMBURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶42

BY SRI.SAJJU.S

¶43

SRI.K.SHAJ

¶44

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

K. HARILAL, J.

¶46

-----------------------------------------------------R.P.No. 581 of 2016 in O.P. (C) No. 1332 of 2016

¶47

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2016

¶48

ORDER

¶49

This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 8/6/2016, passed by this Court in O.P.(C) No.1332/2016. The above Original Petition was filed praying for a direction to the trial court to remove O.S.No.321/1987 from the list and grant an opportunity to challenge the Commission Report.

¶50

This Court, by the impugned order, granted an opportunity to file an objection to the Commission Report on payment of cost of Rs.3,500/- each to the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the court below to dispose the case before 31/8/2016.

¶51

In this Review Petition, the petitioner submits

¶52

R.P.No. 581 of 2016 -: 2 :-

¶53

that the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 objection to the Commission Report for setting aside the same as early as on 11/4/2016; but this Court passed the impugned judgment on an impression that the objection to the Commission Report was not filed till the date of passing the said judgment and there is laches from the part of the review petitioner on that count. Further, it is submitted that the trial of the case was scheduled, without affording sufficient time, to take steps for contesting the case properly and effectively. Hence, the review petitioner prayed for extending the time granted to dispose the case.

¶54

On instruction from the Munsiff's Court, it is reported that, as rightly contended by the review petitioner, in fact, the objection to the Commission Report was filed on 14/4/2016. But, the computer copy of the proceedings produced by the respondents did not show the date of filing of the objection to the Commission Report. In that circumstance, this Court

¶55

R.P.No. 581 of 2016 -: 3 :-

¶56

granted an opportunity to the review petitioner to file an objection to the Commission Report on the belief that no objection was filed so far. Annexure-A2 proceedings sheet filed in the Review Petition also does not show the date of filing of the objection to the Commission Report. So, I cannot find fault with the learned counsel foro the respondents. However, in view of the report from the Munsiff's Court that the objection was filed as early as on 11/4/2016, the direction to file objection to the Commission Report on or before 15/7/2016 and to pay cost to the respondents 1 to 3 will stand deleted from the judgment which is sought to be reviewed.

¶57

As regards the extension of time, this Court finds that even after filing the Commission Report, there was enough time to take pre-trial steps, if the petitioner was diligent in prosecuting the case. Being a remanded and targeted suit of 1987, this Court is not inclined to extend the time granted for disposal of

¶58

R.P.No. 581 of 2016

¶59

-: 4 :-

¶60

the suit. Hence, this prayer will stand rejected.

¶61

This review petition is disposed of with the above modification in the judgment which sought to be reviewed.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶64

Nan/

¶65

//true copy//

¶66

P.S. to Judge

T.P.Abdul Hameed v. Abdul Khaddar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Abdul Hameed v. Abdul Khaddar

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

Sheik Musthafa Vs Njanavel

V.K.Johny Vs a.Jayakrishnan

Joseph Antony Vs Thankey Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., (NO.1003)

Lidia Jino Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs Gopalakurup Vijayan Pillai

M/S. Focal Image India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Focal Image Ltd.