Allowed

Abdul Hameed v. Kunhammed Haji

Kerala HC17 Mar 2021OP(C)/2/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the original petition challenging an impugned order that dismissed an application for extension of time to file an additional written statement. The court held the petitioner was not given sufficient time, set aside the order, and directed the filing of the statement within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Original petition allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to file additional written statement within seven days.

Abdul Hameed Vs Kunhammed Haji — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

OP(C).No.2 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2415/2019 IN OS 172/1985 DATED 0912-2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:

¶8

ABDUL HAMEED

¶9

AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KURUNIYAN KUHIKOYAMMU, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MATTATHOOR P. O., PIN - 676 528, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶12

1 KUNHAMMED HAJI

¶13

S/O. KOONARI PESHUNTHARA MUHAMMED HAJI, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MATTATHOOR P. O., PIN - 676 528, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2 ABDUL MAJEED S/O. KOONARI PESHUNTHARA MUHAMMED HAJI, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MATTATHOOR P. O., PIN - 676 528, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3 KATHIYAKUTTY HAJJUMMA W/O. KOONARI PESHUNTHARA MUHAMMED HAJI, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MATTATHOOR P. O., PIN - 676 528, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

O.P(C)No.2 of 2020

¶17

:-2-:

¶18

4 ALAVIKUTTY S/O. KOONARI PESHUNTHARA MUHAMMED HAJI, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MATTATHOOR P. O., PIN - 676 528, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

5 KUNHIMOIDEEN S/O. KOONARI PESHUNTHARA MUHAMMED HAJI, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MATTATHOOR P. O., PIN - 676 528, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

6 HAMZA S/O. KOONARI PESHUNTHARA MUHAMMED HAJI, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, MATTATHOOR P. O., PIN - 676 528, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.R.MINI R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH R2 BY ADV. SMT.MEENA.A. R2 BY ADV. SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.KIRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O.P(C)No.2 of 2020

¶24

:-3-:

¶25

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2021

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The first defendant in O.S.No.172/1985 before

¶28

the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, challenges Ext.P5 order dismissing I.A.No.2415/2019 submitted by him seeking extension of time for filing an additional written statement. There was an occasion when the matter had come up before this Court and an order of remand was ordered. After the matter came back to the trial court, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint and after allowing the amendment, the petitioner was to file an additional written statement. It is submitted that when the petitioner sought sufficient time to file additional written

¶29

statement, it was refused by the impugned order.

¶30

I heard the learned counsel appearing on

¶31

both sides.

¶32

O.P(C)No.2 of 2020

¶33

:-4-:

¶34

I am satisfied from the materials on record

¶35

that the petitioner/first defendant was not given sufficient time to file additional written statement. It is submitted that the additional written statement is readied now and the learned counsel will be in a position to file the same within a week. In order to enable the petitioner to contest the suit on merits, it is quite necessary that he shall be given an opportunity to submit the additional written statement in accordance with law.

¶36

In the result, the original petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2019. The petitioner shall submit the additional written statement within seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. This being an old suit of 1985, the court below shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible at

¶37

¶38

:-5-:

¶39

any rate not later than by six months. All pending interlocutory applications are

¶40

closed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE

ami/

:-6-:

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN S.A.440/2002 DATED 3.4.2019.

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.2381/2019 IN O.S.172/1985 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 3.12.2019.

¶50

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER TO I.A.2381/2019 IN O.S.172/1985 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 4.12.2019.

¶51

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.2415/2019 IN O.S.172/1985 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR DATED 7.12.2019.

¶52

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2019 IN I.A.2415/2019 IN O.S.172/1985 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT TIRUR.

¶53

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 2.3.2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR IN OS 172/1985 UPDATED ECOURTS CASES STATUS

Abdul Hameed v. Kunhammed Haji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hameed v. Kunhammed Haji

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

Sathi Devi A.N Vs S.Sreejith

P.K.Anvar Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Gigi Thomas, Vs Johny K.Thomas

V.K.Susheela Vs Ramachandran

A.N Bhaskaran Vs Martin V.P