Dismissed

Lekshmi v. Sainudheen

Kerala HC1 Feb 2018OP(C)/207/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the original petition challenging the trial court's order permitting the set-aside of an ex-parte decree. While refusing to intervene under Article 227 due to the brevity of delay, the Court directed the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the suit within 3-4 months.

What did the court decide?

The original petition stands finally disposed of. Directions issued to the trial court to dispose of the suit within 3 to 4 months.

Lekshmi Vs Sainudheen — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 12TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 207 of 2018

¶6

O.S.314/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA.

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

LEKSHMI, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. LATE THULASIBAHAI, PLAVILAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLIKKUNNAM MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE, FROM UDAYABHAVANAM, KOMALLOOR P.O., KARIMULAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA - 690 505.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. SAINUDEEN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. SULAIMAN RAWTHAR, THADATHIL THEKKATHIL, CHUNAKKARA THEKKUM MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY AMINA BEEVI, 61 YEARS, W/O. SULAIMAN RAWTHAR, THADATHIL THEKKATHIL, CHUNAKKARA THEKKUM MURI, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE, CHUNAKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 534.

¶12

2. SASIDHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. NANU, PLAVILA HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY KUNNAM MURI, CHARUMOOD P.O., NOORANADU VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 690 505.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

¶14

OP(C).No. 207 of 2018 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶17

------------ EXHIBIT P1.	---------- THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1519/2016 IN O.S.NO.314/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA DATED 07.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P2.	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1520/2016 IN O.S.NO.314/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA DATED 07.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P3.	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A.NO.1519/2016 IN O.S.NO.314/2012 DATED 27.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P4.	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A.NO.1520/2016 IN O.S.NO.314/2012 DATED 27.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P5.	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NO.1519/2016 AND I.A.NO.1520/2016 IN O.S.NO.314/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKARA DATED 27.05.2017.
RESPONDENTS' ------------	EXHIBITS: NIL ---------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

¶23

O.P.(C) No.207 of 2018

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows :

¶28

“(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit-P5 and set aside the same.”

¶29

Heard Sri.T.S.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this Original Petition (Civil), notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

¶30

The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.314 of 2012 on the

¶31

file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikara, for setting aside the sale deed executed by the first defendant with respect to the plaintiff’s property in favour of the second and third defendants when the plaintiff was minor. The suit was instituted at a time when the plaintiff was a minor and it was filed through her maternal grandfather. The first defendant is the plaintiff’s father and it is alleged that the property in the name of the petitioner herein was transferred not for the necessities of the minor and without the permission of the court. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 19.3.2016. Thereafter, the third defendant had filed Exhibit-P1 I.A.No.1519 of 2016 and Exhibit-P2 I.A.No.1520 of 2016 to set aside the

¶32

: :2::

¶33

O.P.(C) No.207/18

¶34

impugned ex-parte decree and for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the impugned ex-parte decree respectively. Those applications were opposed by the petitioner as evidenced from Exhibits-P3 and P4 objections. The trial court as per the impugned Exhibit-P5 common order dated 27.9.2016 has allowed Exhibits-P1 and P2 I.As. filed by the third defendant and has set aside the impugned ex-parte decree. It is this order at Exhibit-P5 that is under challenge.

¶35

A reading of the impugned Exhibit-P5 order makes it clear that the trial court has considered various aspects of the matter and in particular has noted that the third defendant (who deposed the evidence of PW1 in that I.A.) was under hospital treatment as evidenced from the outpatient ticket dated 19.3.2016 marked as Exhibit-A1 and that according to her, she had been suffered from many diseases, etc. The court below also took note of the fact that the delay involved in this case is only 109 days and had accordingly, taken a lenient view and thus passed the impugned order. It is true that the petitioner has contended that earlier also the suit was set ex-parte on 30.8.2014 and that the said conduct of the third respondent has not been duly taken note of by the trial court. On a perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the exercise of discretion by the trial court cannot be set to be in a culpably perverse or illegal manner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary powers of discretion conferred under Article

¶36

: :3::

¶37

O.P.(C) No.207/18

¶38

227 of the Constitution of India to interdict with such an order. More so, particularly since the delay involved is only 109 days. Sri.T.S.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the defendants will again protract the trial unnecessarily and sufficient protective directions may be issued by this Court to ensure the early disposal of the suit.

¶39

Accordingly, it is ordered that the trial court should ensure that the parties should not be permitted to unnecessarily protract the matter any further and all reasonable measures should be taken to ensure the early disposal of the O.S.No.314 of 2012, without further delay, preferably within a period of 3 to 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is ordered that all the parties concerned should fully co-operate with the trial court in that endeavour to achieve the abovesaid target for early disposal of the suit. This direction is given more particularly in view of the fact that the defendants were set ex-parte on occasions more than one. The petitioner will produce a certificate of this judgment before the trial court concerned for necessary action.

¶40

With these observations and directions, the Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶41

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

csl

Lekshmi v. Sainudheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekshmi v. Sainudheen

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

Bindu Abraham Vs Shaji Yohannan

Dr.R.Ajay Kumar Vs Shree Vidyadhiraja Vidya Samarajam

P.v.Kuttykrishnan Vs the Executive Officer, Ramanthali Devaswom

M/S. Group Mukkadan Vs Zerita Ashlin Rocha

Emma (Minor) Vs Jacob Sebastian

Rejimol Vs Jeneeshmon