Partly allowed

M.Rajendran v. M.R.Sreekumar

Kerala HC5 Apr 2019OP(C)/570/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought early disposal of a money suit in lower court where mediation was pending. Court refused notice to respondent, instead adjourning its own case to direct the lower court to dispose of the suit within five months.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of O.P.(C).No. 570 of 2019 directing the lower court to dispose of O.S.No.1739/2016 within five months from reopening after mid-summer holidays.

M.Rajendran Vs M.R.Sreekumar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No. 570 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 1739/2016 of I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

M.RAJENDRAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O.MADAVAN NADAR, RAJAN SADANAM, KADAKKULAM, NELLIYIL, MULLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL SRI.D.JUSTIN SRI.S.ANIL (PADINJAREKOTA)

¶10

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶11

M.R.SREEKUMAR AGED 56 YEARS S/O. MUKUNDAN NAIR, TC.39/2120, CHALAI, MANACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP(C).No. 570 of 2019

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1739/2016 of the 1^st Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a suit for realisation of the money and in spite of the fact that there is no serious contest, there is considerable delay in the disposal of the suit. It is also contended that the plaintiff is in dire need of money. Hence, he seeks a direction for an early disposal of the matter.

¶17

2. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, the learned Additional Munsiff, by her communication dated 05.03.2019 has informed that the petitioners were relegated for mediation and the mediation report is still awaited. The court below has not given any positive information regarding the time limit within which the matter can be taken up and disposed of.

¶18

3. Considering the limited prayer sought

¶19

OP(C).No. 570 of 2019

¶20

¶21

and the relief that is proposed to be granted, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mediation has failed. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the O.P.(C). itself with a direction to the court below to take up and dispose of O.S.No.1739/2016 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of five months from the date of reopening after the mid summer holidays.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶25

Pn 05/04

¶26

OP(C).No. 570 of 2019

¶27

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.1739/2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN 1739/2016.

M.Rajendran v. M.R.Sreekumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajendran v. M.R.Sreekumar

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

Mini.T.R Vs Ajith Kumar

Unnimaya Vs Srikanth

Shirly D Souza, Vs Marie Fernandez@Marie Celin D Souza

Aswathy Sabu, Vs Dileep Prakash

Valsala Sivaji Vs K.K.Suresh Babu

Valsala Sivaji Vs K.K.Suresh Babu