Allowed

Cholakkal Hamza v. Ansar a

Kerala HC19 Jul 2018RP/529/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of three review petitions. The court found its previous decision to dismiss based on suits being ripe for trial to be incorrect. Review petitioners allowed; matters remanded for hearing after one month, preventing a specific trial date.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions allowed. Impugned judgment quashed. Trial in O.S No.33 of 2016 stayed for one month for pre-trial steps.

Cholakkal Hamza Vs Ansar a — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

RP.No. 529 of 2018 IN OPC. 899/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-06-2018 IN OP(C) 899/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :

¶8

CHOLAKKAL HAMZA, S/O BEERANKUTTY, AGED 49, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, ACHOORANAM P.O AND VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SMT.CELINE JOSEPH.

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :

¶11

ANSAR A, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, ANIYARATH HOUSE, ARIVARAMKUNNU, KAMBALAKKADU POST, KANIYAMBETTA VILLAGE,VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 576.

¶12

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2018, ALONG WITH R.P NO.530 OF 2018 IN O.P(C) NO.1110 OF 2017 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶14

R.P Nos.529 of 2018 in O.P(C) No.899 of 2017, 530 of 2018 in O.P(C) No.1110 of 2017 & 535 of 2018 in W.P(C) No.37446 of 2017

¶15

Dated this the 19th day of July, 2018

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶18

This Court disposed of the matters by a common judgment

¶19

dated 07-06-2018 in the following manner :

¶20

“ Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I

¶21

find no necessity at this stage to pronounce anything on the merit, in respect of matters involved in the original petitions. In so far as the writ petition is concerned, it need be only mentioned that his right to pay basic tax will depend on the outcome of the suit. In the above mentioned circumstances, I find no need to dispose

¶22

R.P Nos.529 of 2018 in O.P(C) No.899 of 2017, 530 of 2018 in O.P(C) No.1110 of 2017 & 535 of 2018 in W.P(C) No.37446 of 2017 - 2 -

¶23

of the original petitions and the writ petition on merits, except to make an observation that the parties are at liberty to work out their remedy after disposal of the suit. Learned trial Judge is hereby directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.”

¶24

The matters were disposed on the premise that the suits viz;

¶25

O.S No.33 of 2016 and O.S No.1 of 2017, between the parties pending

¶26

before the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, are ripe for trial.

¶27

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents in the review

¶28

petitions) submitted that O.S No.33 of 2016 is listed for trial tomorrow and in O.S No.1 of 2017, steps have not been completed.

¶29

R.P Nos.529 of 2018 in O.P(C) No.899 of 2017, 530 of 2018 in O.P(C) No.1110 of 2017 & 535 of 2018 in W.P(C) No.37446 of 2017 - 3 -

¶30

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that

¶31

the judgment passed by this Court on the basis of the submission that the

¶32

suits are ripe for trial appears to be incorrect and therefore, the impugned

¶33

judgment is reviewed.

¶34

The matters shall be posted after one month.

¶35

In the meantime, the parties shall take pre-trial steps before the court

¶36

below. The trial in O.S No.33 of 2016 pending before the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, shall not be proceeded with on 20-07-2018 and the

¶37

parties shall be given a reasonable time to take steps in the matters. Review

¶38

petitions are allowed accordingly.

¶39

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

¶40

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶41

amk

Cholakkal Hamza v. Ansar a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholakkal Hamza v. Ansar a

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

P.P.Ahammed Koya Vs M.Sajid

Varghese Vs Varghese

State of Kerala Vs Gopinathan

Allahabad Bank Ltd. Vs the Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd.

Govindan Lalitha Vs Vairavan Saraswathy

The Food Corporation of India Vs K.a.Noushad