Dismissed

Sumghershanan v. Somasekharan Nair

Kerala HC8 Nov 2019OP (RC)/191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the original petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 CPC as not maintainable. The petitioners were granted liberty to withdraw the petition and approach the appropriate forum for redressal regarding the impugned order. The instant application was closed as consequential.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach appropriate forum; I.A. closed as consequential.

Sumghershanan Vs Somasekharan Nair — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP (RC).No.191 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.1968/2019 IN BRC(OP) NO.1/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶9

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SUMGHERSHANAN, AGED 64 YEARS

¶11

S/O. GOVINDAN, SOUPARNIKAYIL, ERUVA PADINJARU MURIYIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK

¶12

(ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN IN THE ORDER AS SALGARSHANAN).

¶13

2 LEENA, W/O. MADHUSOODHANAN, CHAPRAYIL HOSUE, ERUVA PADINJARU MURIYIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.

¶14

3 MEGHA,D/O. MADHUSOODHANAN, CHAPRAYIL HOSUE, ERUVA PADINJARU MURIYIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.

¶15

4 PARVATHY,D/O. MADHUSOODHANAN, CHAPRAYIL HOSUE, ERUVA PADINJARU MURIYIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL SRI.RAJAN G. GEORGE

¶18

RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/ORIGINAL PETITIONERS:

¶19

1 SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, MELETHU CHAITHANIAYIL, VAZHUVADI MURIYIL, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK- 690 102

¶20

OP (RC).No.191 OF 2019 2

¶21

2 JYOTHI S.NAIR W/O. SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, MELETHU CHAITHANIAYIL, VAZHUVADI MURIYIL, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶22

BY ADV. B. KRISHNAMANI

¶23

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

OP (RC).No.191 OF 2019 3

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶27

Admit. Adv. Sri. B. Krishnamani takes notice for the respondents.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

¶29

The petitioners challenge Ext.P7 order passed by the Rent Control Court (Munsiff's Court), Karunagappally in I.A. No.1968/2019 in BRC(O.P). No.1/2018 whereby the petitioners' application under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') to recall certain witnesses examined on the side of the respondents/landlords, was dismissed.

¶30

I.A. No.1968/2019 was filed when the case was posted for evidence. The court below took a view that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC does not apply to this case and on merits also the Court below did not entertain the application.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents relying on the decision reported by our High Court in Charulatha V. Manju

¶32

OP (RC).No.191 OF 2019 4

¶33

(1994 KHC 45) and an unreported decision in O.P.(R.C) No.207 of 2017, contended that any order passed by a Rent Control Court is appealable under section 18 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act and therefore the original petition is not maintainable.

¶34

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the petition is not maintainable. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the Original Petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance.

¶35

Therefore, we dismiss the petition as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that the petitioners can approach the appropriate forum for challenging Ext.P7 order. In view of the disposal of the original petition, the I.A has become inconsequential and redundant and closed accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

ajt

¶41

OP (RC).No.191 OF 2019 5

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN BRC (OP) NO.01/18 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY (RENT CONTROL COURT).

¶45

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN BRC (OP) NO.01/18 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY (RENT CONTROL COURT). EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW1. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW2. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF DEPOSITION OF DW4. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1968/19. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.10.2019 IN I.A.NO.1968/19. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2268/19. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 01/02/2017. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 02/03/2017.

Sumghershanan v. Somasekharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumghershanan v. Somasekharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Anilmon Thomas Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Scb/Channai

Sajikumar C. R. Vs Suryalal

Abdul Salam E.M., Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

P. P. Pavithran Vs Kottan Puthiya Purayil Jameela

Frncis Vs Sate of Kerala