Disposed

Kunji Saraswathi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2020OP(C)/1058/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought rehearing of an I.A alleging no orders were issued. Court found prior order existed but was set aside. Directs Trial Court to issue the order or proceed to hear I.A expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directing Trial Court to forthwith issue the order passed in I.A.No.50/2003 on petitioner's application within two weeks, or proceed to hear the I.A expeditiously if no order is produced.

Kunji Saraswathi Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

OP(C).No.1058 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 240/1994 DATED 21-12-2001 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER/1st CLAIMANT:

¶8

KUNJI SARASWATHI, AGED 81 YEARS W/O. SUKUMARAN, KARIYAVILA VEEDU, THURUVIKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 031.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

SRI. M.I.JOHNSON -SR.GP

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C).No.1058 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This original petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily alleging that even though her application, namely I.A.No.50/2003 seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2001 in LAR No.240/1994 on the files of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is stated to have been allowed, she has not been favoured with certified copy of the said order. The petitioner alleges that no orders have been issued by the Trial Court in the aforementioned I.A and therefore, seeks that the said Court be directed to rehear I.A.No.50/2003 and issue fresh orders thereon.

¶18

The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.M.I.Johnson appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that going by the 'B' diary proceedings, the aforementioned I.A has already been allowed on 23.09.2006 and therefore that the petitioner cannot now seek the prayers as have been sought in this original petition. He submitted that the attempt of the petitioner appears to be to get over the laws of limitation by alleging that no orders have been issued on the aforementioned I.A and he, therefore, prays that this Court may not grant the reliefs as sought for.

¶19

I notice from the proceedings that this Court had

¶20

OP(C).No.1058 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

directed the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to furnish all the orders in the afore I.A. The learned Sub Judge has, in obedience thereto, now addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court dated 04.08.2020 producing therewith the order dated 31.10.2003 in I.A.No.50/2003 in LAR 240/1994.

¶23

When I go through the order now produced by the learned Sub Judge, a copy of which is already available along with this original petition as Ext.P5, it is clear that this is the first order passed by the said Court in I.A.No.50/2003; but that, through Ext.P6 judgment of this Court, the same had been set aside and the Trial Court had been directed to reconsider the said I.A. Obviously therefore, when the learned Sub Judge has again sent the same order to this Court, without stating if a new order had been issued subsequent to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, it cannot obtain the approval of this court.

¶24

I do not, however, wish to say anything further, lest it causes prejudice to either side.

¶25

I am, consequently, of the firm view that this is an eminently fit case where this Court will be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction and to direct the Trial Court to forthwith issue the order passed by it in I.A.No.50/2003 in

¶26

OP(C).No.1058 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

LAR 240/1994, consequent to the directions of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C) No.3671/2004 dated 30.01.2004, on the petitioner making an appropriate application for the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, if, for any reason, no such order is on record, then the Court will, thereupon, proceed to hear I.A.No.50/2003, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides and to issue appropriate orders on it as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Stu

¶32

OP(C).No.1058 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10.12.1996 IN L.A.R. NO.240/1994 BEFORE THE COURT OF II ND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2001 IN L.A.R. NOS.109/1994 AND 240/1994 BY THE COURT OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF DECREE DATED 21.12.2001 IN L.A.R. NO.240/1994 BY THE COURT OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.50/2003 IN L.A.R. NO.240/1994 WHICH IS IN FACT MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.10.2003 IN I.A.NO.50/2003 IN L.A.R. NO.240/1994 BY THE COURT OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.1.2004 IN W.P.(C) NO.3671/2004.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF 'B' DIARY IN L.A.R. NO.240/1994 OF THE COURT OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT NIL DATED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 4.10.2017 BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 2.11.2017 FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶40

OP(C).No.1058 OF 2020

¶41

Kunji Saraswathi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunji Saraswathi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangalasseri Sobhana, Vs Donbosco

Surendranath N. G. Vs M/S. Kdhp Co. Pvt. Ltd.

C.M.Mathew, Vs K.Biju IAS

M.P.Varghese Vs Annamma Yacob

M.v.Unnikrishnan Vs Sarada.G.Muraleedharan

P.B.Homes Private Limited, Vs Radhakrishnan P.