Allowed

Dr.John Joseph v. Jiss Thomas

Kerala HC16 Nov 2019OP(C)/2762/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this original petition challenging a non-speaking order dismissing an interim application for signature comparison, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order on grounds of non-application of mind and lack of speaking order, and remitted the matter for disposal after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P5 order set aside; matter remitted to court below for disposal of IA No. 2198 of 2018 afresh after hearing both sides.

Dr.John Joseph Vs Jiss Thomas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶3

SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶4

OP(C).No.2762 OF 2018

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 76/2016 DATED 25-09-2018 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

DR.JOHN JOSEPH AGED 47 YEARS S/O C.J. JOSEPH, CHETTUPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 503

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

JISS THOMAS AGED 36 YEARS W/O DR JOHN JOSEPH, EXPRESS ESTATE, FLAT NO. 10 B, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 017

¶11

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.L.THOMAS

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP(C).No.2762 OF 2018

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Ext. P5 order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

The petitioner is the third defendant in O.S. No. 76 of 2016 on the files of the court below. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent filed I.A. No. 2198 of 2018 in O.S. No. 76 of 2016 before the Court below, with a request to the court to issue direction to the 3rd defendant to appear before the Court and give his signature, for comparison with the signature in the written statement. The petitioner filed Ext. P4 counter affidavit to the said application. Thereafter, the court below passed Ext. P5 order.

¶19

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner himself stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had put the signature in the written statement, nobody else can say that it is not

¶20

-: 3 :-

¶21

OP(C).No.2762 OF 2018

¶22

the signature of the petitioner. However, it appears that the court below did not consider the contentions of the petitioner before passing Ext. P5 order. It appears that Ext. P5 order is not a speaking order, as it does not contain any reason for passing the said order. Since Ext. P5 is not a speaking order, I am inclined to set aside the same.

¶23

In the result, this Original Petition stands allowed, setting aside Ext. P5 order and the matter is remitted to the court below for the disposal of IA No. 2198 of 2018 afresh, in accordance with law, taking into consideration of the contentions on both sides and affording opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶24

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge

¶25

ani/

¶26

-: 4 :-

¶27

OP(C).No.2762 OF 2018

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1

¶31

TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 31.3.2016 IN OS NO.76/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶32

EXHIBIT P2

¶33

TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 4.10.2016 IN O.S.NO.76/2016 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶34

EXHIBIT P3

¶35

TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2198/2018 IN O.S.NO.76/2016 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶36

EXHIBIT P4

¶37

TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.2198/2018 IN O.S.NO.76/2016 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5

¶39

TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.9.2018 IN I.A.NO.2198/2018 IN O.S.NO.76/2016 PASSED BY SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S (PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE) COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶40

/true copy/

Dr.John Joseph v. Jiss Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.John Joseph v. Jiss Thomas

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

K.v.Sayyid Hashim Vs P.P.Muhammed Yasin

Anu Rose Mathew Vs Pratheesh Jaison

K.T.Samuel, Vs Satheesan

Tom Thomas, Vs Annamma

Gayathri Devi Vs Jayan R.

Gopi T.N. Vs State of Kerala