Disposed

Leela Blessin v. Shaji Varghese

Kerala HC27 Feb 2018OP(C)/448/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Petition filed under Article 227 directing the Subordinate Judge to dispose of a final decree application. Court directed the trial court to fix objections to the commissioner's report and pass the final decree within six months to prevent delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to ensure objections are filed within two weeks and the final decree is rendered within six months.

Leela Blessin Vs Shaji Varghese — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 448 of 2018 --------------------IA NO.989/2014 IN OS 45/2012 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

---------

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

LEELA BLESSIN, W/O. BLESSION, AGED 64 YEARS, VALAVIL VEEDU, THUMPAMON ERATHU MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, UNNUKALLU P.O, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.SAJU.S.A SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. SHAJI VARGHESE, S/O. LATE VARGHESE, AGED 56 YEARS, VALAVIL VEEDU, THUMPAMON ERATHU MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, UNNUKALLU P.O, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 647.

¶12

2. BIJI VARGHESE, S/O. LATE VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, VALAVIL VEEDU, THUMPAMON ERATHU MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, UNNUKALLU P.O, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 647.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

OP(C).No. 448 of 2018 (O)

¶16

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1.	COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 45/2012 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 2.2.12.
EXHIBIT P2.	COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER, 2012 FILED BY THE IST DEFENDANT IN OS 45/2012, SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXHIBIT P3.	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PATHANAMTHITTA IN OS 45/2012 DATED 31.7.14.
EXHIBIT P4.	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN RFA NO.742/2014 DATED 28.9.17.
EXHIBIT P5.	COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE IST DEFENDANT IN THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT IN IA 989/2014 IN OS 45/2012, SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 30.1.18.

¶19

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 6.03.2018

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

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

¶24

O.P(C).No. 448 of 2018

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

“Pass an order directing the court of Subordinate Judge of Pathanamthitta to dispose of I.A.No.989/2014 in O.S.No. 45/12 on its file, within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶31

Heard Smt.A.Meena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

¶32

This Court has passed order on 20.2.2018 directing the Registry of this Court to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pathanamthitta, as to the present stage of final decree application, I.A.No. 989/2014 in O.S.No. 45/2012 and as to the reasonable time required for its final disposal.

¶33

Now the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, has furnished a report dated 22.2.2018, to the Registry of this Court, wherein it has been stated that I.A.No.989/2014 was filed by the plaintiff to pass final decree in O.S.No. 45/2012 and as per order in I.A.No. 990/2014, the commissioner report was filed by the Commissioner Advocate on 25.2.2016. That objection to the Commission report is not filed so far. That the actual passing of the final decree has been stayed as per order dated 18.11.2014 in

¶34

O.P(C).448/18 - : 2 :-

¶35

I.A.No. 2597/2014 in RFA No.742/2014 by this Court. That final decree application is posted to 27.3.2018 for filing objection in commission report and that six months' time is required for passing final decree, etc.

¶36

It appears from a reading of the said report of the trial court, that the said court has not been appraised on Ext.P-4 judgment dated 28.9.2017 , whereby RFA 774/2014 has already been dismissed. As of now, the said order dated 18.11.2014 rendered by this Court in I.A.No. 2597/2014 in RFA No.742/2014 is no longer in existence inasmuch as the said RFA has already been finally disposed of.It is stated by the petitioner that the 1^st defendant in the O.S./1^st respondent herein has already filed Ext.P-5 objection dated 30.1.2018 to the commissioner's report in I.A.No. 989/2014 in the said O.S.No..

¶37

In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the court below will ensure that the parties concerned may file their objection to the commissioner's report, if they have not so far filed their objections and time by two weeks may not be given inasmuch as the commission report has been filed as early as on 25.2.2016 and none of the parties should be allowed to protract the proceedings any further. The trial court will take all necessary endeavours possible under the circumstances to ensure that final decree is rendered in the above suit without much delay, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this

¶38

O.P(C).448/18 - : 3 :-

¶39

judgment, as suggested in the said report of the court below concerned. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the court below concerned for necessary information.

¶40

With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition

¶41

(Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶42

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶43

P.S. to Judge

Leela Blessin v. Shaji Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Blessin v. Shaji Varghese

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

Lt. Col. R.Sivadas Vs M. Sreeraj

Thankamani Vs the Vadakkekara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.3131

Alamma Jacob Vs Thiruvalla Municipality

Murali Vs Vishnu

Seena K Vs Manoharan

Sajith Vs Sathi Devi