The High Court allowed the applicant's petition to set aside the trial court's order appointing a second Advocate Commissioner without assigning any reason, directing the lower court to pass a reasoned order and dispose of the suit within six months.
The impugned order (Ext.P6) was set aside, the suit suit was directed to be disposed within six months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 2624 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 64/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
C.V.MATHEW AGED 78 YEARS TRUSTEE, M/S. ST. THOMAS MARTHOMA CHURCH, PULIYOOR, RESIDING AT CHIRATHARA MATHEWS' VILLA, ALA, NORTH MURI, ALA, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 IMMANUEL MARTHOMA CHURCH CHERIYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, SHRI P. VARGHESE, S/O. G. ABRAHAM, MARY COTTAGE, CHERIYANAD WEST MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689121.
2 P. VARGHESE TRUSTEE (FINANCE), M/S IMMANUEL MARTHOMA CHURCH, S/O. G. ABRAHAM, MARY COTTAGE, CHERIYANAD WEST MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689121.
3 K. C. THOMAS TRUSTEE (ACCOUNTS), M/S IMMANUEL MARTHOMA CHURCH, S/O. CHACKO, PEACE COTTAGE, CHERIYANAD WEST MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689121.
4 PROF. LALU VARGHESE
S/O. VARGHESE, SECRETARY, M/S IMMANUEL MARTHOMA CHURCH,
OP(C) NO. 2624 OF 2019
2
RESIDING AT KUTTIYIL HOUSE, CHERIYANAD WEST MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689121.
8 CAPTAIN B. MATHEW TRUSTEE (FINANCE), M/S. ST. THOMAS MARTHOMA CHURCH, PULIYOOR, PULIYOOR MURI, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK - 689510.
9 M. C. CHERIAN SECRETARY, M/S. ST. THOMAS MARTHOMA CHURCH, PULIYOOR, RESIDING AT KOVOOR MALAYIL THEKKETHIL, CHERIYANAD EAST MURI, CHERIYANAD, CHENGANNUR TALUK - 689121.
BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 2624 OF 2019
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2021
The original petition is filed aggrieved by Ext.P6 order by which the trial court appointed a second Advocate Commissioner without assigning any reason. Initially, at the instance of the plaintiffs, an Advocate commissioner was appointed and Ext.P3 report filed. Thereafter, the defendant moved Ext.P4 application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner along with surveyor, pointing out that the earlier Commissioner had failed to demarcate the boundaries, which is against the dictum in Raveendran v. Lohithakshan [2017 (2) KLT 865] . Inspite of Ext.P5 objection, the Court below passed Ext.P6 order appointing another Advocate Commissioner along with surveyor for inspecting the property and filing report.
OP(C) NO. 2624 OF 2019
4
Commissioner, an Advocate with sufficient experience, was deputed since the first Commissioner did not have the request experience.
3.In as much as no reason is stated in Ext.P6 order, I am compelled to set aside the same. The learned counsel for the respondent requested that the suit may be directed to be disposed of at the earliest.
In the result, the original petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P6 and the Court below is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application and to pass reasoned orders thereon within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The court below shall also take earnest efforts to dispose the suit within six months.
Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE
SJ
OP(C) NO. 2624 OF 2019
5
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2624/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED IN CONNECTION WITH O.S.NO.64/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 IN O.S.NO.64/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DATED 06.03.2015 IN CONNECTION WITH O.S.NO.64/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.I.A.1153/2019 IN O.S.NO.64/2015 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18.7.2019 IN CONNECTION WITH NO.I.A.NO.1153/2019 IN O.S.NO.64/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.7.2019 MADE I.A.NO.1153/2019 IN O.S.NO.64/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 22.7.2019 IN I.A.NO.1153/2019 IN O.S.NO.64/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DETAILS RELATING TO O.S.NO.64/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR FROM 6.3.2015 TO 4.11.2019.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside an order appointing a second adjudicating officer without stating any reason.
Whether the applicant is entitled to reconsideration of the impugned order.
Whether to direct speedy disposal of the underlying suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raveendran v. LohithakshanReferred¶31
Raveendran v. Lohithakshan [2017 (2) KLT 865]
C.V. Mathew
Immanuel Marthoma Church Cheriyana
P. Varghese
K.C. Thomas
Prof. Lalu Varghese
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
