M. Hamza v. Eni
Case brief
What is this about?
The court held that a challenge to an interim order had become infructuous. The petitioner was directed to ensure disposal of the main suit within four months.
What did the court decide?
The Sub Judge was directed to dispose of the main suit within four months of receiving a copy of the judgment.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940 OP(C).No. 2400 of 2012(O) -------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.NO.3258/2011 IN AS 64/2010 of SUB COURT, TIRUR DATED 04-07-2012
PETITIONER(S)
M. HAMZA S/O.MUHAMMED, MEDIPPARA HOUSE, P.O KANMANAM, VIA KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ENI, S/O. MUHAMMED, MEDIPPARA HOSUE, P.O KANMANAM VIA, KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 556.
2. THITHI D/O.MOHAMMED, -DO3. PATHUMMAKUTTY D/O.MUHAMMED, -DOR1 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.VANDANA MENON
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging the impugned order has become infructuous.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. Hamza
- respondent
Eni
- respondent
Thithi
- respondent
Pathummakkutty
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court