Disposed

Badhusha v. Nizamudeen

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018OP(C)/1473/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Petition was filed seeking a direction to the Civil Judge to expeditiously consider an application seeking a reference of a disputed document for an expert opinion. The High Court directed the lower court to decide the application within one month without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Civil Court to consider I.A. No.2046/2017 within one month.

Badhusha Vs Nizamudeen — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶3

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

¶4

OS 490/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶5

PETITIONER/DEFENDANT.

¶6

BADHUSHA, S/O MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 67 YEARS, SUDHEER MANZIL, VAZHODE, PANAVOOR PO,NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.N.P.ASHA

¶8

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.:

¶9

NIZAMUDEEN, S/O MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHENVEEDU, URALIKUNNU, VENKUZHY, PANAVOOR PO, NEDUMANGADU, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHARAFUDEEN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED HANEEFA, KALLIYODE THALIKKALLIL HOUSE, VETTAMPALLY MURI, NEDUMANGADU-PIN-695568.

¶10

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

¶11

OP(C).No. 1473 of 2018 (O)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶14

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.490/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGADU.

¶15

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGADU IN O.S NO.490/2013 DATED 25.8.2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.2046/2017 IN O.S NO.490/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGADU.

¶16

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶17

/TRUE COPY/

¶18

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 18.06.2018

¶19

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶20

O.P.(C) No.1473 of 2018

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The defendant in a suit for specific performance is the

¶24

petitioner. The alleged agreement for sale is denied by the petitioner contending that it is a fabricated document. He has filed I.A.No.2046/2017 seeking reference of the document for the opinion of an expert. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said application has not yet been considered by the court below.

¶25

In the above circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, I direct the court below to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A.No.2046/2017, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

This Original Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN,

JUDGE

Badhusha v. Nizamudeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badhusha v. Nizamudeen

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

Indiramma Vs Jagadamma

Thomas Shanti Vs Mathai Shanti