Criminal appeal over a maintainable appealable order. The single judge closed the petition and permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Petitioner dismissed from original petition; liberty to claim protection under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the appellate court.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1941
OP(C).No.1438 OF 2018(O)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.2/2018 IN OS 30/2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
DAYARACHANKADI ANDRU
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O AVULLA MONDYOTTUMMAL, NARIPPATTA AMSOM, THINAYOOR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP SRI.M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RAOOF DHAYARACHANKANDI VALLILTHARA, 9KUNHAMI'S HOUSE) NARIPPATTA AMSOM, THINYOOR DESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIJKODE DISTRICT - 673101.
2 MOOSSA CHAKKITTANKANDI
AGED 65 YEARS, THANNERPANATHAL , THANNEERPANTHAL (PO), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673101.
3 JAMEL DHAYARACHANKANDI AGED 41 YEARS SO MOIDU KAIVELI NARIPPATA AMSOM THINAYOOR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673101.
OP(C).No.1438 OF 2018(O)
..2..
4 KUNHAMMAD DHAYARACHANKANDI AGED 36 YEARS SO SOOPPY KAIVELI NARIPPATTA AMSOM THINAYOOR DESOM VAT
5 RASEENA CHAKKITTANKANDI AGED 25 YEARS DO MOOSSA VALLITHARA, (KUNHAMI'S HOUSE)NARIPPATTA AMSOM, THINAYOOR DESOM VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673101.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU R1 BY ADV. SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No.1438 OF 2018(O)
..3..
JUDGMENT
The order under challenge in this OP(C) is Ext.P5,
which is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC. Since there is provision for appeal, I am not inclined to entertain this OP(C).
Accordingly, this OP(C) stands closed. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to request the appellate court concerned for protection under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
Bka/14.11.2019
OP(C).No.1438 OF 2018(O)
..4..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 159/2017 IN O.S NO. 30/2017 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A NO. 2/2018 IN O.S NO. 30/2017 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY O THE I.A NO. 611/2017 IN O.S NO. 30 2017 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIF COURT, NADAPPURAM
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/03/2018 IN O.P (CIVIL) NO. 933/2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/4/2018 IN I.A NO. 611/2017 AND I.A NO. 2/2018 IN O.S NO. 30/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF OF NADAPURAM.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the original petition should be closed while allowing the petitioner to seek appellate protection under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Dayarachankandi Andru
Raooof Dhayarachankandi Vallilthara
Moossa Chakkittankandi
Jamel Dhayarachankandi
Kunhammad Dhayarachankandi
Raseena Chakkittankandi
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
