Dismissed

Rose Marie Pereira v. Jhancy @ Bridget Shaji

Kerala HC13 Jan 2017CRP/319/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition contesting the overruling of an objection regarding suit maintainability under Section 563 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The High Court found no infirmity in the order but dismissed the revision with liberty to agitate issues at trial.

What did the court decide?

Judgment is that the revision petition is dismissed with liberty to agitate all issues now canvassed at the time of trial.

Rose Marie Pereira Vs Jhancy @ Bridget Shaji — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 319 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2/4/16 IN IA.NO649/16 IN OS 521/2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT. :

¶8

ROSE MARIE PEREIRA,

¶9

AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. PETER PEREIRA RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 10 KODINAR, MODEL TOWN ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3:

¶12

1. JHANCY @ BRIDGET SHAJI, W/O. SHAJI, R/O HOUSE NO. 15/1431, CHERUKODU HOUSE, NAZRETH KOCHI-2

¶13

2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶14

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER ZONAL OFFICE, COCHIN CORPORATION FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-11.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.G.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶16

SMT.M.L.REMYA

¶17

R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.E.D.GEORGE,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

SKG

¶20

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶21

========================= C.R.P.No.319/2016

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.521 of

¶25

2015 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kochi. She raised a question regarding maintainability of the suit as per I.A.No.649 of 2016 in O.S.No.521 of 2015, referring to Section 563 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The precise question of the objection has been overruled. Challenging the order of the court below, the petitioner/defendant has come up with this revision.

¶26

The petitioner’s case is that she is armed with a valid permit and the plaintiff in the suit is indirectly challenging constructions undertaken by her based on a valid permit. The court below, in fact, after detailed consideration overruled the objection raised in the matter.

¶27

CRP 319/2016

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

I do not find any infirmity with the order passed.

¶30

However, this court is of the view that the trial court need not be influenced with this order while taking a final decision after adducing evidence. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all issues now canvassed at the time of trial.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶33

Rose Marie Pereira v. Jhancy @ Bridget Shaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rose Marie Pereira v. Jhancy @ Bridget Shaji

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

Kuriakose Joy Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hafeez Vs Kunjammu

Rajan Vs Surendran

Rajamma Vs Devaki

A.Abdul Rasheed Vs Asha C. Abraham

Razia Fazal Vs Thomaskutty Epan