Dismissed

Indiramma v. Jagadamma

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018OP(C)/1393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court classified a petition seeking expeditious disposal of a pending suit. The Court noted procedural delays caused by the petitioner's actions and refused to grant a time-bound disposal order, directing only that the lower court make every endeavour to dispose of the suit as quickly as possible.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed only in view that no direction for time-bound disposal could be granted.

Indiramma Vs Jagadamma — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 1393 of 2018

¶6

---------------------OS 283/2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHENGANNUR

¶7

-------------

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

INDIRAMMA,AGED 61 YEARS, D/O BHARGAVIAMMA,SIVARANGATHUL HOUSE, KURATTISSERY MURI, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.SANIL JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. JAGADAMMA,AGED 77 YEARS, D/O CHELLAMMA, POOVANNAAL AAYA KALAKKATTUTHARAYI, MANNAR KARA, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST-689622.

¶13

2. JAYASREE, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O JAGADAMMA, POOVANNAAL AAYA KALAKKATTUTHARAYI, MANNAR KARA, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST-689622.

¶14

3. VIJAYAN UNNITHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, POOVANNAAL AAYA KALAKKATTUTHARAYI, MANNAR KARA, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST-689622.

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

OP(C).No. 1393 of 2018

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.283/2014, MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHENGANNUR.

¶21

P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S NO.283/2014, MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHENGANNUR.

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶23

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 18.06.2018

¶24

SATHISH NINAN, J. ----------------------------------O.P.(C) No.1393 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

All that the petitioner seeks for is an expeditious disposal of O.S.No.283/2014 pending on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur. The report called for from the Registry reveals that the suit was included in the special list for July, 2017, then the petitioner herein filed two applications; one for impleading additional defendants and the other for removing the case from the list. Pursuant there to, the suit was removed from the list and notice was ordered to the proposed additional defendants. The suit was posted to 13.06.2018 for producing paper publication regarding the unserved respondents. It is in the said background that the disposal of the suit is delayed. After having sought for removing the case from the list and filed impleading application, the petitioner ought not have moved this court seeking expeditious disposal of the suit. The steps in the suit needs to be completed.

¶28

¶29

O.P.(C) No.1393 of 2018

¶30

In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any direction for a time bound disposal. However, I am sure that every endeavour will be made by the court below to try and dispose of O.S.No.283/2014 pending on its files, as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE

¶34

Indiramma v. Jagadamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indiramma v. Jagadamma

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

Dr.M.P.Korah Vs Dr.Mrs.Rachel Zachariah @ Rahel

Paily Korah Vs Dr.Ann Zacharia

Asokan N.M Vs Babu P.A

K.v.Govinda Varrier Vs Neermangatt Devaswom

Thomas Shanti Vs Mathai Shanti

Badhusha Vs Nizamudeen