Venu v. Rajeev
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of an original civil petition filed for reconstructing a missing advocate commission report. The court recorded that the trial court had already been permitted to reconstruct the report and directed necessary administrative action for its reconsideration.
What did the court decide?
Directions to the trial court to take necessary action for reconsideration of the commission report and to finalize the matter without delay.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939
OP(C).No. 408 of 2018
OS 569/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.
PETITIONER:
VENU, S/O. BAPPY , AGED 47, ARAKKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O., KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES SMT.A.T.RENJU
RESPONDENT(S):
1. RAJEEV, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 35, ARAKKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O., KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK - 682027.
2. SASI, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 48, ARAKKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O., KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK - 682027.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court should reconstruct the missing advocate commission report in the underlying civil suit upon High Court permission.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Venu
- respondent
Rajeev
- respondent
Sasi
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court