Disposed

Radhakrishnan v. v.Pankajam

Kerala HC12 Jun 2018OP(C)/863/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of an original petition filed by a plaintiff in a specific performance suit. The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of applications to reopen evidence. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the pending applications regarding reopening evidence and calling for records expeditiously before proceeding further.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to pass appropriate orders on the pending applications to reopen evidence and call for records as expeditiously as possible.

Radhakrishnan Vs v.Pankajam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 863 of 2018

¶6

OS. NO.417/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶7

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT BELOW

¶8

RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, KRISHNASREE, VIDHYANAGAR EAST, AKATHETHARA AMSOM DESOM, AKATHETHARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

SRI.K.V.WINSTON

¶11

SMT.ANU JACOB.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT BELOW:

¶13

1. V. PANKAJAM, W/O.BALAN, ANKAVAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, AKATHETHARA AMSOM DESOM, AKATHETHARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 008.

¶14

2. AMBUJAKSHAN, S/O.APPUCHAMI, KUNNUKKAD AMSOM, AKATHETHARA AMSOM DESOM, AKATHETHARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 008.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs. 13/06/2018.

¶18

OP(C).No. 863 of 2018 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.417/2009 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.417/2009 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.104/2006 OF THE COURT OF MUNSIFF OF PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.979/2018 IN O.S.NO.417/2009 OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.978/2018 IN O.S.NO.417/2009 OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.977/2018 IN O.S.NO.417/2009 OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.975/2018 IN O.S.NO.417/2009 OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

13/06/2018.

SATHISH NINAN, J. ----------------------------------O.P.(C) No.863 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the petitioner. He is aggrieved by the non-consideration of Exts.P4 and P5 applications I.A.No.979/2018 and I.A.No.978/2018, filed

¶31

by him seeking to re-open the evidence and to call for certain records. It is the case of the plaintiff that, in the written statement, the execution of the agreement was not disputed; however, in the course of evidence the defendant denied the execution of the agreement. According to him, there were two earlier suits as O.S.No.177/2006 and O.S.No.104/2006 between the same parties which also related to the very same agreement. According to the plaintiff, in view of the denial of the agreement by the defendant in the course of evidence, it has become necessary to call for the records in the earlier suits to prove the genuineness of the agreement. Therefore applications were necessitated, is the submission. It is also brought to my notice

¶32

O.P.(C) No.863 of 2018 2

¶33

that the defendant has also filed two applications as I.A.No.975/2018 and I.A.No.977/2018 seeking to re-open the evidence and also to call for certain records. The applications are pending.

¶34

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is only appropriate that the court below passes orders on the said applications before continuing with further proceedings in the suit. The court below shall pass appropriate orders on the said applications as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE

¶37

Radhakrishnan v. v.Pankajam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan v. v.Pankajam

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

Emmanuval K.Joseph Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Unnunni Thankachan Vs Radhamma

Jollychen P. Joseph Vs Sunny George

A.D. Gopala Shenoy Vs T.J. Mathai

Vahida Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Sankaran Vs Raveendran