Disposed

Ajith George Thomas v. Muraleedharan

Kerala HC6 Feb 2018OP(C)/272/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held under Art. 226, the High Court directed the Munsiff Court to dispose of a pending interim application within six weeks and allowed specific objections to be filed within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Directed Munsiff Court to dispose of I.A. No. 416/2017 within 6 weeks and allowed respondent to file objections within 10 days.

Ajith George Thomas Vs Muraleedharan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 272 of 2018 --------------------IA NO. 416/2012 IN OS NO. 226/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL

¶6

-----

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶8

AJITH GEORGE THOMAS REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.M. VARKY, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O MATHAYI, HOUSE NO.426, CARBO RANDOM ROAD, R.D PLOT, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT.:

¶11

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

¶12

MURALEEDHARAN AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, RESIDING AT PRA-18, KELLIND LANE, PARUTHIPARA, MUTTADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. PRAVEEN K. JOY (B/O)

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

OP(C).No. 272 of 2018 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.S NO.226 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE OUT PATIENT RECORD PERTAINING TO MR.P.M VARKEY ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY MRS. SUCIE THOMAS DATED 24.4.2012,
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 21.4.2012.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2014.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2016 IN CMA NO.14 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 06.04.2016 IN OP NO.911 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 12.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2017 IN I.A NO.1806/2016.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 27.10.2017.
*EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.416/2017.

¶20

SUBSTITUTED :

¶21

*EXHIBIT P11	IS SUBSTITUTED AS PER	VIDE ORDER DATED 31/1/2018
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.662/2017.	JUDGEMENT DATED 21.8.2017 IN OP(C)
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE WP(C) NO.13809/20	JUDGEMENT DATED 14.6.2012 IN 12.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE	JUDGEMENT DATED 13.10.2015.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 3.8.2015.

¶22

OP(C).No. 272 of 2018 (O)

¶23

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 14.8.2014.

¶24

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶30

==================

¶31

O.P(C).No. 272 of 2018

¶32

==================

¶33

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2018

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling

¶36

provisions contained in Art.227 of the Constitution of India is as follows:

¶37

“To direct the Munsiff Court, Attingal to dispose of I.A.No.416/17 in O.S.No. 226/2012 and to finalise the proceedings actions in the said I.A. within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶38

Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen K.Joy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶39

Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits on the basis of the instructions of his party that Ext.P-11 I.A.No.416/2017 filed by the petitioner herein/plaintiff in O.S.No. 226/2012 is still pending consideration and that the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner is for a direction of this Court to ensure that that the Munsiff's court, Attingal, disposes of that Ext.P-11 I.A. without much delay.

¶40

Sri.Praveen.K.Joy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that that he could not secure factual instructions from the respondent as to pendency of Ext.P-11 I.A., etc. and that in case, Ext.P-11 I.A. is still pending, then this Court may grant sufficient time to the respondent in that I.A. to file objections/counter affidavit to that I.A., in case such objections/counter affidavit has not been filed so far, etc.

¶41

O.P(C).272/18 - : 2 :-

¶42

Accordingly, it is ordered that in case Ext.P-11 I.A.No. 416/2017 in O.S.No.226/2012 is still pending consideration before the Munsiff's Court, Attingal, then the said court shall take up the same for consideration without much delay and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides, will pass orders on that I.A., in accordance with law, without much delay preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. In case the respondent has not so far filed counter affidavit/objections to the said I.A., they may file their objections/counter affidavit without much delay, preferably within 10 days from the date notified for receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. As regards the request made by the respondent that permission may be granted to adduce evidence in that I.A., it is for the respondent to make necessary plea in that regard before the court below and it is for that court to examine and decide on such plea based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶43

The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the court below for necessary information.

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶46

///True Copy///

¶47

P.S. to Judge

Ajith George Thomas v. Muraleedharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith George Thomas v. Muraleedharan

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

George Jacob Pulickal Vs Surendhu Govindan

Beegum Farisa Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Sidique Vs the Land Tribunal Tirur

Liji K. Vs Sri. a.K.Aravindakshan

Thilakaraj Vs Rani

Achamma Vs Saidu Muhammed