Allowed

Y.Mathew Joe v. Javahar Navodaya Vidyalaya

Kerala HC11 Jan 2017OP(C)/255/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the petitioner's plea to withdraw a civil suit despite the pendency of a defendant's counter claim. Held that the right to withdraw is independent of the counter claim procedure. Remanded the counter claim to be prosecuted separately.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit while the defendant may continue with the counter claim.

Y.Mathew Joe Vs Javahar Navodaya Vidyalaya — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/21ST POUSHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 255 of 2015 (O)

¶6

-------------------------OS.NO. 364/2014 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

Y. MATHEW JOE, AGED 49, S/O.THOMAS MATHAI, RESIDING AT THURUTHEL HOUSE, MANGANAM.P.O., VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK.

¶9

BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA),SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA SRI.AMAL GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, VADAVATHOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 010.

¶12

2. COMMISSIONER, NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITHI, B-15, SECTIOR-62, NOIDA. PIN-201 309

¶13

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITHI, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 001

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

OPC.NO.255/2015

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KOTTAYAM DATED 17/12/2012

¶21

P2 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 28/12/2012

¶22

P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/5/2014 ADDRESSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE RDO KOTTAYAM TO THE ADDL.THAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM BY DATED 08/05/2014

¶24

P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/05/2014.

¶25

P6 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17/05/2014

¶26

P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/5/2014 RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM

¶27

P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/06/2014 TO THE OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANARCAUD

¶28

P9 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KOTTAYAM DATED 23/6/2014

¶29

P10 COPY OF THE IA NO.2451/2014 (COURT FEE NO.7706/2014) IN OS 364/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/09/2014

¶30

P11 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN OS 364/2014 DATED 19/09/2014

¶31

P12 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTIONS DATED 06/10/2014

¶32

P13 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.2451/2014 IN OS 364/2014 DATED 17/11/2014.

¶33

P14 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PASSPORT

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶39

O.P.(C) No. 255 of 2015

¶40

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2017

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

1.The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in a suit, sought to withdraw the suit. The defendant had filed a counter claim. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the suit, stating that there exists formal defect. The court below, citing pendency of the counter claim, rejected the petitioner's request. The court below also referred to a judgment of the apex court.

¶43

2.The plaintiff, being the master of the suit, is having right to withdraw the suit. It is not dependant upon the right of the defendant to prosecute the counter claim. The apex court judgment, referred in the impugned order, according to me, has no application in the matter. The provision to counter claim was, in fact, brought in the statute only in 1977. The apex court judgment, referred by the court below, is of the

¶44

O.P.(C) No. 255 of 2015

¶45

..2..

¶46

year, 1967. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside.

¶47

3.Accordingly, the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. However, this will not affect in prosecuting the counter claim of the defendant. The court below shall proceed with the counter claim in a logic line without any delay.

¶48

4.The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶51

bka/-

Y.Mathew Joe v. Javahar Navodaya Vidyalaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Mathew Joe v. Javahar Navodaya Vidyalaya

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

Latha Sasi K. Vs Samuel George

Meenakshi Vs Ammachu

P.S Sidharthan Vs Baby

V.S.Mary Vs Ratheesh

Dr.Joy P Chungath Vs M/S. Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd.

M.K.Marattukalm @ Mathew Vs Ammini Davis