The High Court of Kerala granted a two-month extension to the second respondent (appellant in IA/3/2020) to comply with prior directions regarding the vacation of certain premises, denying any further extension.
Time for two months to vacate the premises; no further extension granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IA/3/2020 IN RFA 470/2013
1 / 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
Wednesday,the 17th day of March 2021/26th Phalguna, 1942
IA/3/2020 IN RFA 470/2013
OS No.261/2008 of the SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA
APPELLANT/ 2nd RESPONDENT THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER For information purpose only I.O.C., PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN- 682016.
RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS & 1st RESPONDENT
1. THOMAS V THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 63 YEARS, VELOOR HOUSE,
PUTHUKUNDAM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.2. ESTHER THOMAS,AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O. THOMAS V. THOMAS, VELOOR HOUSE, PUTHUKUNDAM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.3. SUJITH THOMAS,AGED 49 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, VELOOR HOUSE, PUTHUKUNDAM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
4. DEEPA SAJEEV, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. SAJEEV, RESIDING AT KADAKKAL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, POOMALA.P.O- 688011.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to extend the time
for complying with the directions in the judgment dated 16/10/2020 by a
further period of 2 months from today to meet the ends of justice.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's judgment
dated 16-10-2020 and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. THUSHARA JAMES
T, Advocate for the petitioner/ R2 in RFA, and of Adv. PAUL K.VARGHESE,
for R1 to R3/ A1 To A3 in RFA, & Adv. B.PREMNATH, for R4/ R1 in RFA,
the court passed the following
O R D E R
The second respondent in the appeal has sought two months' time
to vacate the premises. Time sought for is granted. No further
extension will be allowed.
17-03-2021
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE
/true copy/
IA/3/2020 IN RFA 470/2013
2 / 2
Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
For information purpose only
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an extension of two months is granted to the second respondent to vacate the premises.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER I.O.C., PANAMPILLY NAGAR
THOMAS V THOMAS
ESTHER THOMAS
SUJITH THOMAS
DEEPA SAJEEV
T.V. ANILKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court