Allowed

P.Devadas @ Unni, (Deceased) v. Venu

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021FAO/13/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order addressed an appeal regarding an interim order. The Court held that though the appeal technically arose from an order expired in time, it is fit to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit without being hampered by the expired observations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months untrammelled by observations in the impugned order.

P.Devadas @ Unni, (Deceased) Vs Venu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

FAO NO. 13 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 7/1/2020 IN I.A.724/2019 IN OS 27/2018 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA

¶7

APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT IN IA 724/2019/204TH RESPONDENT IN

¶8

OS.27/2018:

¶9

1 P.DEVADAS @ UNNI, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.ACHUTHAN,AGED 54 YEARS, KARTHIAYANI NIVAS,NEAR THIKKODI SCHOOL, MUTTUNGAL WEST,MUTTUNGAL AMSOM,DESOM,VADAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.-673 106(DECEASED)

¶10

2 LATHIKA, W/O.LATE P.DEVADAS, AGED 55 YEARS,KARTHIAYANI NIVAS,NEAR THIKKODI SCHOOL,MUTTUNGAL WEST,MUTTUNGAL AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 106.

¶11

3 DIVYA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.DEVADAS,AGED 37 YEARS,KARTHIAYANI NIVAS,NEAR THIKKODI SCHOOL,MUTTUNGAL WEST, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 106.

¶12

4 DEEPIKA, D/O.LATE P.DEVADAS,AGED 35 YEARS, KARTHIAYANI NIVAS,NEAR THIKKODI SCHOOL,MUTTUNGAL WEST,MUTTUNGAL AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 106.

¶13

5 DIBINA, D/O.LATE P.DEVADAS,AGED 25 YEARS,KARTHIAYANI NIVAS,NEAR THIKKODI SCHOOL,MUTTUNGAL WEST,MUTTUNGAL AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 106.

¶14

6 DILNA, D/O.LATE P.DEVADAS,AGED 25 YEARS,KARTHIAYANI NIVAS,NEAR THIKKODI SCHOOL,MUTTUNGAL WEST,MUTTUNGAL AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 106.

¶15

THE APPLICANTS IN I.A NO.2/2020 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS NOS. 2 TO 6 IN THE APPEAL AS PER THE ORDER OF HON'BLE TVA(J) DATED 3/12/2020.

¶16

ADDL.A7 TO A12 IMPLEADED.

¶17

*7 P.RAMAKRISHNAN, @ KOCHU, S/O.KARUPPUNNI,AGED 57 YEARS, PANANTAVIDA,KARUPPUNNI BHAVAN, CHORODE AMSOM, ERAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673 106.

¶18

8 P.JAYARAMAN,S/O.KARUPPUNNI,AGED 54 YEARS,

¶19

FAO NO. 13 OF 2020 2

¶20

PANANTAVIDA,KARUPPUNNI BHAVAN, CHORODE AMSOM,ERAPURAM DESOM. VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673 106.

¶21

9 HAREENDRAN,S/O.KARUPPUNNI,AGED 49 YEARS, PANANTAVIDA,KARUPPUNNI BHAVAN, CHORODE AMSOM,ERAPURAM DESOM. VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673 106.

¶22

10 KANAKARAJAN P., S/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN,AGED 55 YEARS,PANANTAVIDA HOUSE,P.O.VATAKARA BEACH, KOZHIKODE-673 106.

¶23

11 UDAYAN P.,S/O.SREEDHARAN,AGED 45 YEARS,PANANTAVIDA HOUSE,CHORODE AMSOM, DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 106.

¶24

12 P.PRAKASHAN, S/O.RAMUNNI,AGED 53YEARS,PANANTAVIDA HOUSE,NOW RESIDING AT SREE PADMAM,VAIKKILERI VALAPPIL POST, VATAKARA BEACH,KOZHIKODE-673 103. ADDL.

¶25

**THE APPELLICANTS IN IA NO.1/21 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 7 TO 12 AS PER THE ORDER DTD.1/2/2021

¶26

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN

¶27

SRI.RAJESH V. NAIR

¶28

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN IA.724/19/PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 3 IN OS.27/19:

¶29

1 VENU, AGED 72,S/O.MADHAVI,'SREEPADAM', VALLIYAMANGAD,P.O.KOYILANDI,KOZHIKODE-673 305.

¶30

2 KUTTIMON,AGED 66 YEARS,S/O.MADHAVI,PANANTAVIDA, KUTTIYADI,VATAKARA AMSOM,DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673 508.

¶31

3 SADANANDAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVI,PANANTAVIDA,KUTTIYADI, VATAKARA AMSOM,DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673 508.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS-(R1-R3) SRI.K.K.ANILRAJ-R1

¶33

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

FAO NO. 13 OF 2020 3

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

During the course of argument, the learned

¶37

counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order is with respect to a particular period and that the said period is over. Hence, the appeal has become infructuous.

¶38

It was countered by the counsel for the appellant stating that interim orders were passed overlooking all settled principles. Going by the order, it is clear that, there is some weight in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. But, taking into consideration the fact that the order was for a particular period, which is over now, it would be fit and proper to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in the impugned order.

¶39

The trial court shall take all endeavour to dispose of the suit within a time schedule of

¶40

FAO NO. 13 OF 2020 4

¶41

six months from the date of production of order of this court, untrammelled by any of the observations made in the impugned order.

¶42

The appeal will stand disposed of

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

P.Devadas @ Unni, (Deceased) v. Venu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Devadas @ Unni, (Deceased) v. Venu

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

Sasikumaran Vs Ushakumari and 3 Others

B.Pushpa Vs Thamarath Brijesh

Thomas Pullannikavil Vs Johny Pullannikavil

Ravindran.R., Vs Reeja Sudarshan

Edavalath Rajan Vs Edavalath Janaki

Central Bank of India Vs Peter V.G.