Disposed

E.M. Abraham v. Claramma

Kerala HC30 Oct 2018OP(C)/2824/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil original petition, the High Court directed the lower Munsiff court to dispose an ongoing suit expeditiously within six months, considering the petitioner's status as an 82-year-old senior citizen and the failure of two defendants to file a written statement.

What did the court decide?

Dated 30.10.2018, this original petition is disposed of after directing the Munsiff Court to dispose the underlying suit within 6 months.

E.M. Abraham Vs Claramma — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA,

¶5

1940

¶6

OP(C).No. 2824 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 505/2016 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

E.M. ABRAHAM AGED 82 YEARS

¶10

S/O. MATHALI, PATHALI PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, VALANCHUZHY MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SHRI.MANU SANKAR P. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX

RESPONDENT/S:

1 CLARAMMA

AGED 62 YEARS

W/O. VINCENT PAUL, IDUKKUPARATHUNDIL @ PATHALIL HOUSE, VALANCHUZHY MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK - 689 646

¶17

2 VINCENT PAUL, AGED 65 YEARS IDUKKUPARATHUNDIL @ PATHALIL HOUSE, VALANCHUZHY MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK 689 646

¶18

3 ST. THOMAS CATHOLIC CHURCH,VALANCHUZHY REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE,

¶19

ST. THOMAS CATHOLIC CHURCH, VALANCHUZHY MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK 689 646

¶20

4 DAVID KOSHI, AGED 50 YEARS

¶21

S/O. DAVID, TRUSTEE ST. THOMAS CATHOLIC CHURCH, VALANCHUZHY ARUVANNAR MURUPPEL VEEDU, VALANCHUZHY MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK 689 646

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2018,

¶23

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

OP(C).No. 2824 of 2018

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner in this original petition is a senior citizen, aged 82 years. He is the plaintiff

¶28

in O.S.No.505/2016, on the file of Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta. The Counsel submitted that there may be an expeditious disposal. It is also

¶29

the submission that in violation of the statute

¶30

mandate regarding the time to file written statement, defendants 3 and 4, so far, not filed

¶31

any written statement. They are protracting the proceedings.

¶32

The court below is directed to dispose the

¶33

matter expeditiously, keeping in mind that the petitioner is a senior citizen and also directed that the suit shall be disposed of within a period of 6 months, from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if further

¶34

OP(C).No. 2824 of 2018

¶35

¶36

time is required, it can be requested to this

¶37

Court by filing a report showing reasons.

¶38

With the above directions, this Original

¶39

Petition (Civil) is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

RK/30.10.2018

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

OP(C).No. 2824 of 2018

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 505 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN OS NO. 505 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶51

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶52

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

¶53

E.M. Abraham v. Claramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.M. Abraham v. Claramma

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

Devassy Vs Mani

Aswanth.N Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj U.M Vs State of Kerala

Kadeeja, Vs Abdul Nazer

Jiji Chacko, Vs State of Kerala

Prem Nazeer M. Vs State of Kerala