Disposed

C.G.Girish Kumar v. Ammukkutty Amma

Kerala HC8 Mar 2018OP(C)/685/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the First Additional Munsiff Court to expedite disposal of pending restoration and condonation of delay applications. Further proceedings in a related execution petition were deferred pending the disposal of these applications, misleading the petitioner regarding potential deprivation of property rights.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to dispose of restoration and condonation applications by May 2018 and staying related execution proceedings pending such disposal.

C.G.Girish Kumar Vs Ammukkutty Amma — Partition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 685 of 2018 --------------------E.A 93/2017 IN E.P 178/2009 IN O.S NO.906/1982 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶6

------

¶7

PETITIONER/APPLICANT/CLAIM PETITIONER

¶8

C.G.GIRISH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS,S/O.SARASWATHI AMMA,DEVIKA NIVAS,, IX/250 H,VIDAKKUZHA KARA, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA,ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS:

¶11

1. AMMUKKUTTY AMMA, AGED 69 YEARS,D/O KOCHUKUTTY AMMA,PEEDIKAPARAMBU, MANJUMMEL KARA,VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-688518.

¶12

2. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.AMMUKUTTY AMMA,PEEDIKAPARAMBU, MANJUMMEL KARA,VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-688518.

¶13

3. VIJAYALEKSHMI, AGED 44 YEARS,D/O.AMMUKUTTY AMMA,PEEDIKAPARAMBU, MANJUMMEL KARA,VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-688518.

¶14

4. SARASWATHY AMMA, AGED 65 YEARS,D/O KOCHUKUTTY AMMA,CHERATTU VEETTIL, VIDAKKUZHA KARA,THAIKKATTUKARA POST,ALUVA-6.

¶15

5. SREEDEVI, AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.SARASWATHI AMMA,CHERATTU VEETTIL, VIDAKKUZHA KARA,THAIKKATTUKARA POST,ALUVA-6.

¶16

6. GEETHA, AGED 39 YEARS,D/O.SARASWATHY AMMA,CHERATTU VEETTIL, VIDAKKUZHA KARA,THAIKKATTUKARA POST,ALUVA-6.

¶17

7. SREEKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.SARASWATHY AMMA,CHERATTU VEETTIL, VIDAKKUZHA KARA,THAIKKATTUKARA POST,ALUVA-6.

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.V.

¶20

OP(C).No. 685 of 2018 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1736 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/03/2003 IN O.S.NO.1736/1996 OF THE COURT OF FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF E.A.NO.467 OF 2014 IN E.P.NO.178 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.906 OF 1982 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF PRIINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2016 IN E.A.NO.467/2014 IN E.P.NO.178/2009 IN O.S.NO.906/1982 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN A.S.NO.13 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/08/2016 IN A.S.NO.13/2016 OF THE COURT OF SUB JUDGE,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.685 OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.1736/1996 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM SEEKING RESTORATION OF SUIT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.684 OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.1736/1996 FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 5049 DAYS IN THE FILING THE RESTORATION PETITION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF E.A.NO.93 OF 2017 IN E.P.NO.178 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.906 OF 1982 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN E.A.NO.93 OF 2017 IN E.P.NO.178 OF 2009 IN O.S.906 OF 1982 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2018 IN E.A.NO.93/2017 IN E.P. 93/2017 IN E.P.NO.178/2009 IN O.S.906/1982 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 15.03.2018

¶26

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶27

O.P.(C) No. 685 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :

¶31

“i. Direct the Hon'ble First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to consider and pass appropriate orders in I.A. No.684/2017 and I.A. No.685 of 2017 in O.S. No.1736 of 1996 on its file within a time frame and

¶32

ii. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶33

Heard Sri.S. Shanavas Khan, learned counsel appearing

¶34

for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

¶35

It is stated that O.S. No.906/1982 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein before the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam against respondents 4 to 7 for declaration, partition and injunction. The petitioner was not made party to the said Suit and when he came to know this, he preferred O.S. No.1736/1996 before the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam claiming

¶36

OP(C) : 685 of 2018

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

1/8^th share in the decree schedule property and for other consequential reliefs. O.S. No.1736 of 1996 was dismissed for default on 04.03.2003, but the counsel assured him that the same would be restored. Thereafter in the year 2014 after the death of the counsel, the petitioner came to know that O.S. No.1736/1996 was not restored, but that final decree was passed in O.S. No.906/1982 and consequently E.P. No.178/2009 was filed by the decree holders in O.S. No.906/1982.

¶39

The petitioner had filed a claim petition as E.A No.467/2014 in E.P. No.178/2009. But, the same was dismissed and Appeal Suit, A.S. No.13/2016 filed against the said dismissal also did not turn fruitful. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 I.A. No.684/2017 for condonation of delay and Ext.P7 I.A. No. 685 of 2017 before the First Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam for restoration of O.S. No.1736 of 1996. Both Exts.P7 and P8 applications are pending. But, in the mean time, respondents 1 to 3 had proceeded with the execution petition. Hence, the petitioner has filed E.A. No.93/2017 for staying the execution petition till disposal of Exts.P7 and P8 applications. But E.A. No.93/2017 was

¶40

OP(C) : 685 of 2018

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

dismissed and the execution petition now stands posted to 09.03.2018, it is averred. The contention of the petitioner is that if the execution petition has attained finality, then there will be no purpose in pursuing restoration of O.S. No.1736 of 1996 and petitioner will be deprived of his rightful share in the decree schedule property, it is contended.

¶43

It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents 4 to 7 in Exts.P7 and P8 applications have entered appearance and submitted that they have no objections. But, notice to respondents 1 to 3 has been sent by registered post. Having regard to the limited submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam will take up for consideration Exts.P7 and P8 applications for consideration, without much delay and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides, will pass orders thereon, without much delay, preferably by the 2^nd week of April 2018 or at least before the end of May, 2018. Until orders are passed on Exts.P7 and P8 applications, further proceedings in E.P. No.178/2009 in O.S. No.906/1982 pending on the files of

¶44

OP(C) : 685 of 2018

¶45

-:4:-

¶46

Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam will stand deferred. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the trial courts concerned, for necessary information.

¶47

With the above observations and directions, this Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶48

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶49

ttb

C.G.Girish Kumar v. Ammukkutty Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.Girish Kumar v. Ammukkutty Amma

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

M.Shanta Vs Thayambath Padmanabhan

Sunilkumar S. Vs Anandakumar K.

N.Rajasekharan Unnithan Vs Prasannan Unnithan

Shajeer Vs M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

Kumar. S Vs Saraswathiamma

Nicholas Vs Kevin Nicholas