Disposed

Vijayan v. Vijayamma

Kerala HC23 Jan 2017OP(C)/2300/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an original petition seeking superintendence under Article 227. The petition arose from a civil appeal where the Sub Court dismissed an application to recall a witness for further examination. The High Court found no reason to invoke Article 227 and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The original petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the appellate decree if finally aggrieved.

Vijayan Vs Vijayamma — 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

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2300 of 2016 (O)

¶6

AS 4/2015 OF SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

VIJAYAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE KESAVAN, R/O.VELLAPRAMBIL, PERISSERY P.O. - 689 122, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

VIJAYAMMA, AGED 66 YEARS, D/O.LATE BHAVANI, R/O.VELLAPARAMBIL, PERISSERY P.O. - 689 122, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

OP(C).No. 2300 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 3/9/2016 FILED AS IA NO 285/2016 IN A.S.NO.4/2015 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN IA NO 285/2016 IN A.S.NO.4/2015 DTD 5/9/2016 ISSUED BY THE SUB JUDGE, CHENGANNUR.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

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

¶27

O.P.(C).No.2300/2016

¶28

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2017

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This original petition is filed by the appellant in A.S.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Sub Judge, Chengannur. The appeal is filed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.301 of 2012 passed by the Munsiff Court, Chengannur. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was for mandatory injunction to direct the petitioner/defendant to vacate the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The suit was decreed. The appellant preferred the appeal. In the appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall DW1 for further examination. The court below dismissed the application. I do not find any reason to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution. With liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same if finally aggrieved by the appellate decree and judgment, the original petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶33

Vijayan v. Vijayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan v. Vijayamma

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

Rajendran Vs Prasanna

Swapna.R Vs K.v.Mohan Kumar

Rajan Vs Anilkumar

Muhammed Abdul Noor Vs Saheer Ahammed

K.K.Soman Vs P.P.Paily @ Paulose

Deshaseva Sangham Vs K Balakrishnan