High Court of Kerala directed the Munsiff Magistrate Court to dispose of a pending interim application within two weeks and ensure final disposal of the main suit within three to four months to prevent delay.
Direction to trial court to dispose of pending interim application within two weeks and final suit within three to four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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. 450 of 2018
OS.NO.288/2010 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA ------------
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA PILLAI, POICKALAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKADU PADINJARE MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE, PORUVAZHI P.O., KOLLAM- 690 520
BY ADVS.SRI.DIPU.R SRI.SANAL P.RAJ SRI.K.S.BAIJU SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA SMT.DHANYA BABU SMT.P.A.PRIYA
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS:
1. CLEETUS,AGED 52 YEARS, KALLUMPURATH VEEDU, PANAPETTI MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE, PORUVAZHY P.O. KOLLAM- 690 520
2. SUSEELA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O CLEETUS, KALLUMPURATH VEEDU, PANAPETTI MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE, PORUVAZHY P.O. KOLLAM- 690 520
3. MARYKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, SISTER OF CLEETUS, KALLUMPURATH VEEDU, PANAPETTI MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE, PORUVAZHY P.O. KOLLAM- 690 520
4. AMBROSE, AGED 60 YEARS, PRASAD BHAVAN, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTAH P.O. KOLLAM- 690 521
2/-
-2-
OP(C).No. 450 of 2018
5. VIJAYAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O AMBRAOSE, PRASAD BHAVAN, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE,
6. PREETHI JACOB, D/O VIJAYAMMA, ATHEENA BHAVAN, FROM, PRASAD BHAVAN, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE,
sts
OP(C).No. 450 of 2018 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.288/2010 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT AT SASTHAMCOTTAH EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT ALONG WITH COUNTER CLAIM IN OS NO.288/2010 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED TO THE COUNTER CLAIM IN OS NO.288/10 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.288/2010 DATED 27-10-2015 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1359/2015 IN OS NO.288/2010 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.288/2010 DATED 12-12-2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.61 2018 IN OS NO.288/2010
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .
O.P.(C) No. 450 of 2018
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the
enabling provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :
“i. Direct the court below, i.e. Munsiff Magistrate Court, Sasthamcottah to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 I.A. Within one month.
ii. Further direct the Munsiff Magistrate Court Sasthamcottah to pass final judgment in Ext.P1 suit, within two months, if it allows Ext.P7 I.A.
iii. This Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to pass any other just and equitable order under the given facts and circumstances of the case as deemed fit in favour of the petitioner.”
OP(C) : 450 of 2018
-:2:-
defendant in that regard. Accordingly, the said ex parte decree dated 27.10.2015 was set aside and the suit was restored. Still further, the respondents were set ex parte which led to the rendering of Ext.P6 decree dated 12.12.2017. The respondents/defendats have now filed Ext.P7 I.A. No.61/2018 in the above said suit seeking to set aside Ext.P6 ex parte decree. The petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the pendency of Ext.P7 application is causing unnecessary hardships and inconveniences to the petitioner which is dominus litus and that the limited relief sought by the petitioner is for a direction from this Court for an early disposal of Ext.P7 I.A., without much delay.
OP(C) : 450 of 2018
-:3:-
the eventuality if the trial court is allowing Ext.P7 application, then the trial court shall ensure that the main matter in O.S. No.288/2010 is finally disposed of without much delay, preferably within 3 to 4 months from the date of restoration of that Suit and the defendants shall not be permitted to unnecessarily prolong or drag the proceedings any further. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the trial court for necessary information.
With these observations and directions, this Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
ttb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the trial court to dispose of a pending interim application and the main suit without further delay.
SREEDHARAN PILLAI
CLEETUS
SUSEELA
MARYKUTTY
AMBROSE
VIJAYAMMA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
