Disposed

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

Kerala HC4 Aug 2020OP(C)/957/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

the high court disposed of an original petition regarding possession dispute without adjudicating merits. It directed the respondent to restore possession by 10.08.2020 and expedited specific applications before the lower court, reserving damages claims for later proceedings.

What did the court decide?

directed respondents to put petitioners in possession of the property on or before 10.08.2020.

Surendranath N. G. Vs M/S. Kdhp Co. Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶6

IN OS 97/2020 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVICOLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

1 SURENDRANATH N. G. AGED 50 YEARS S/O. N. GANAPATHI, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.MGP 19/51, NALLATHANNI ROAD, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612.

¶9

2 GLINCY AGED 47 YEARS W/O. SURENDRANATH N. G., RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.MGP 19/51, NALLATHANNI ROAD, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612.

¶10

3 RANI HADCY @ SANDRA AGED 19 YEARS D/O. SURENDRANATH N. G., RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.MGP 19/51, NALLATHANNI ROAD, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SHRI.PRAVEEN S. SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SHRI.MATHEW K.T. SHRI.GEORGE K.V.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶13

1 M/S. KDHP CO. PVT. LTD A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED IN INDIA WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KDHP HOUSE, N. H. 49, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KDHP CO. PVT. LTD., KDHP HOUSE, MUNNAR POST AND VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612.

¶14

2 PRAMOD KRISHNA MANAGER, NALLATHANNI ESTATE, M/S. KDHP CO. PVT. LTD., MUNNAR POST AND VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 612.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS R1 BY ADV. SRI.ISAAC THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM R1 BY ADV. SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS R1 BY ADV. SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA R1 BY ADV. SMT.ZAINAB ZEBAIBRAHIM P.M.

¶16

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This original petition has been filed by the defendants in M.T.O.P.No.305 of 2014, originally pending before the Special Tribunal, Munnar, which is now stated to have been transferred to the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, but not renumbered yet.

¶23

According to the petitioners, they had suffered an exparte decree in the aforementioned M.T.O.P filed by the 1^st respondent - Company herein and that they had, therefore, preferred Ext.P2 application to have the same set aside. They say that, in the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent - Company filed Ext.P3 execution petition stating that in spite of the decree, they had not surrendered vacant possession of the decree schedule property and building and seeking that they be so evicted in terms of law; but that while so, the 1^st respondent - Company trespassed into the property and forcibly dispossessed them. They, thus pray that the respondents be directed to put them back i n possession of the property; along with other corollary prayers, including that the hearing of Ext.P2 application be expedited.

¶24

Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Abraham Markos, learned counsel for the

¶25

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

respondents began his submissions in opposition to the afore allegations of the petitioners, as voiced by their learned counsel Sri.George Mathew, by asserting that even at the time when this original petition had been filed, his clients had taken possession of the property from the petitioners since they had abandoned it for more than three months earlier. He had submitted that, as is clear from Ext.R1(d) filed along with his clients' counter affidavit, an Advocate Commissioner, who visited the property on 19.06.2020, found that the property was in the possession of one of their employees - Sri.Madaswamy.

¶28

However, to a pointed question, Sri.Joseph Kodianthara conceded that the execution petition was filed only on 21.05.2020, while his clients' case, as averred in the counter affidavit, is that they had taken possession of the property on 30.05.2020, asserting that it had been abandoned by the petitioners three months earlier. Noticing the incongruity between these two assertions, the learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted that he will obtain instructions from his clients and get back to this Court. It is in such circumstances, that this matter has been listed today.

¶29

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Joseph Kodianthara today submitted that a memo has been filed by his clients to the following effect:

¶32

“1. The 1^st respondent agrees to unconditionally put the petitioner in possession of the plaint schedule building on or before 10.08.2020.

¶33

Subject to the above, this Respondent craves leave of this Honourable Court to seek the following reliefs:

¶34

(a) that the Petitioner be restrained from in any manner alienating or encumbering the Plaint Schedule Building.

¶35

(b) that this Honourable Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing and final disposal of Exhibit P2 in I.A.No.140/2018 in MTOP.No.305/2014 and also Proceedings in Exhibit P3 Execution Petition in E.P.No.13/2020 in O.S.No.335/2013.

¶36

(c) that this Honourable Court may be pleased to reserve the right of either party to claim damages from the other based on the outcome of the Proceedings before the Lower Court.”

¶37

6. Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioners, submitted that his clients do not stand in the way of the suggestions now put forth by the 1^st respondent in the afore memo, but prays that the application to set aside the ex-parte decree filed by his clients, namely Ext.P2, be directed to be taken up first, before further proceedings in the execution

¶39

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

petition is continued.

¶42

Since, the learned Senior Counsel does not have any objection to this, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this original petition, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of the rival parties.

¶43

In the afore circumstances, this original petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to put the petitioner and his family in possession of the plaint schedule building on or before 10.08.2020. The Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, will take up Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioners and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and the Execution Court will, thereafter, depending upon the result of the said application, deal with Ext.P3 execution petition in terms of law.

¶44

In order to enable the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, to act expeditiously in terms of this judgment, I direct the parties to mark appearance before the said Court on 17.08.2020.

¶45

I reiteratingly, make it clear that I have not considered the dialectical contentions of the parties and that all their

¶46

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶47

¶48

rights are left open to be adjudicated appropriately.

¶49

In the nature of the circumstances seen above, I deem it appropriate not to make any order as to costs and to direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶50

SD/-

¶51

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

¶54

OP(C).No.957 OF 2020

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 03.03.2018 IN I.A.NO.139 OF 2018 OF MTOP NO.305 OF 2014 OF ERSTWHILE MUNNAR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 03.03.2018 IN I.A.NO.140 OF 2018 OF MTOP NO.305 OF 2014 OF ERSTWHILE MUNNAR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 21.05.2020 IN E.P.NO.13 OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.335 OF 2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 03.06.2020 IN O.S.NO.97 OF 2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.73 OF 2020 DATED 04.06.2020 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.97 OF 2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 08.06.2020 IN I.A.NO.4 OF 2020 IN O.S.NO.97 OF 2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF WORK MEMO DATED 08.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS IN O.S.NO.97 OF 2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 30.06.2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendranath N. G. v. M/S. Kdhp Co. Pvt. 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

C.M.Mathew, Vs K.Biju IAS

Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samiti Vs Joy Mohan W

Jose Varghese Vs Beena Anand

Mangalasseri Sobhana, Vs Donbosco

Kunji Saraswathi Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Varghese Vs Annamma Yacob