Dismissed

Kochi Diocese v. Augustine

Kerala HC5 Jan 2017CRP/498/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Kerala High Court considered a civil revision petition challenging a lower court's decision to relegate an issue of res judicata to the facts and laws. The court held that the revisional court cannot receive additional evidence to determine maintainability. Consequently, the petition and an interim application were dismissed, but the petitioner was directed to produce the doc

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition No.498 of 2013 and I.A.No.19 of 2017 were dismissed. Petitioner directed to produce documents before the court below to seek review.

Kochi Diocese Vs Augustine — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/15TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 498 of 2013

¶6

O.S.NO. 15/2012 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS :

¶8

1. KOCHI DIOCESE, FORT KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS BISHOP HIS HOLINESS, DR.JOSEPH KARIYIL, BISHOP'S PALACE, KOCHI-682 001, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK.

¶9

2. REV.FR.JOY SASTHAMPURACKAL, PROCURATOR OF THE BISHOP KOCHI DIOCESE, BISHOP'S PALACE, KOCHI-682 001, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.GEORGE SMT.SMITHA GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS :

¶12

1. AUGUSTINE, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, PAZHEKATTU HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI- 682 006, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE (OLD PALLURUTHY VILLAGE), KOCHI TALUK.

¶13

2. GEORGE ANTONY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, PAZHEKATTU HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI- 682 006, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE (OLD PALLURUTHY VILLAGE), KOCHI TALUK.

¶14

3. RAJEENA, AGED 83 YEARS, W/O.JOHN, , PAZHEKATTU HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI- 682 006, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE (OLD PALLURUTHY VILLAGE), KOCHI TALUK.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.AJITH

¶16

SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN R2 & R 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

CRP.No. 498 of 2013

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 142/1985.

¶23

ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO. 142/1985.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.No.498/2013

¶32

¶33

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2017

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The defendants in O.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kochi have approached this court with this revision petition challenging the finding on preliminary issue. The petitioners/defendants case is that the issue involved in this case was adjudicated between the very same parties in O.S.No.142 of 1985. The defendants had, in the written statement filed before the court below, contended that the suit is barred by res judicata . The court below found that the question of maintainability on the ground of res judicata being question of facts and laws, the question of maintainability shall be relegated for trial. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the court below. There is no infirmity with the decision of the court below. The petitioners have along with a separate I.A. No.19 of 2017, produced certain documents to substantiate their claims. This court is of the view that the

¶36

C.R.P.No.498/2013

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

revisional court cannot receive any additional evidences to determine the question regarding maintainability on the ground of res judicata . Therefore, I.A. No.19 of 2017 to receive additional documents is dismissed. The civil revision petition is dismissed with the observations as above. However, it is open for the petitioner to produce documents, now produced, before the court below to seek review of the impugned order.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

\True copy//

¶43

P.S to Judge

Kochi Diocese v. Augustine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochi Diocese v. Augustine

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

S K Azfar Ali Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

Media Systems India Soft Solutions Private Limited Vs N M Ali

Naveenkumar Vs K.Balakrishnan

Ramaswamy Achari Vs R.Ramesh Babu

The Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd. Fort Kochi - 1 Vs E.K.Santha Kumari

Sudarsanan Vs Radha