Quashed

Joby v. the New Trichur Company (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC28 Nov 2019OP(C)/3524/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, defendants in money recovery suits, challenged an order by the learned Munsiff imposing a sum of Rs.50,000 as cost for granting enlargement of time to file written statement. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the lower court to accept the written statements.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order imposing cost of Rs.50,000 was set aside; the court below was directed to accept the written statements.

Joby Vs the New Trichur Company (P) Ltd. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No.3524 OF 2013(O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 668/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT ,VADAKKANCHERRY

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

1 JOBY, S/O.SIMON, VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PAREMBADAM DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶9

2 SIMON,S/O.VADAKKETHALAKKAL MATHEW, VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PAREMBADAM DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶10

3 BABY, W/O.VADAKKETHALAKKAL MATHEW, VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PAREMBADAM DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

THE NEW TRICHUR COMPANY (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-680001.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).3530/2013(O), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

OP(C).No.3524 & 3530 OF 2013(O)

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶21

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶22

OP(C).No.3530 OF 2013

¶23

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 669/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT ,VADAKKANCHERRY

¶24

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

¶25

1 JOBY, S/O.SIMON VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PAREMBADAM DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶26

2 SIMON, S/O. VADAKKETHALAKKAL MATHEW, VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PAREMBADAM DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶27

3 BABY, W/O. VADAKKETHALAKKAL MATHEW, VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PAREMBADAM DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶28

4 ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. AVARU, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, VELLITHIRUTHY DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶29

5 AISHA BEEVI, W/O. ABDUL HAMEED, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, VELLITHIRUTHY DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADVS.

¶30

SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P

¶31

SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶32

THE NEW TRICHUR COMPANY (P) LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-680001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶33

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).3524/2013(O), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

-3-

¶35

OP(C).No.3524 & 3530 OF 2013(O)

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioners are the defendants in a suit for recovery of money under a kuri transaction. On receipt of summons, they entered appearance before the court on 09.09.2013. The suit was posted to 26.09.2013 for filing written statement. On the said date, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.3898/2013 and 3899/2013 in the suits, seeking enlargement of time by a period of one month for filing the written statement.

¶38

The learned Munsiff granted the prayer by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/-. The said order is under challenge in this original petition.

¶39

Apparently, the condition imposed by the learned Munsiff is harsh. It is only appropriate that the petitioners- defendants be grant an opportunity to file written statement and to have the original suit contested and disposed of on its merits. There has been an

¶40

-4-

¶41

OP(C).No.3524 & 3530 OF 2013(O)

¶42

irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside. The court below shall accept the written statement and proceed with the suit in

¶43

accordance with law.

¶44

These Original Petitions (Civil) are disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

Nkr/28.11.19

-5-

OP(C).No.3524 & 3530 OF 2013(O)

¶51

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3524/2013

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 668/2013 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY.

¶54

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONERS IN IA 3898/2013 IN OS 668/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 26/09/2013 IN IA 3898/2013 IN OS 668/2013.

¶55

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶56

-6-

¶57

OP(C).No.3524 & 3530 OF 2013(O)

¶58

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3530/2013

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.669/2013 ON THE FILED OF MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY.

¶61

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONERS IN I.A. 3899/2013 IN O.S. 669/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 26-09-2013 IN I.A. 3899/2013 IN O.S. 669/2013.

¶62

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Joby v. the New Trichur Company (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joby v. the New Trichur Company (P) Ltd.

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

Zamoothiri Guruvayurappan Vs v.Krishnan

Abubacker, (Died) Vs Hamsa

Mubeena Vs Sadique Hamsa

Nadeera Beevi Vs Mallika Beevi (Died) Lrs Recorded

Padmanabhan Vs Damodaran

Joby, S/O.Simon Vs the New Trichur Company (P) Ltd.