A review petition challenging an order refusing status quo. The court clarified that it never decided on the maintainability of the underlying suit, leaving that question for the trial court while keeping the petitioners right to plead non-maintainability open.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
RP NO. 529 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 989/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
1 SELVARAJ AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE THEPPILOS NADAR, VALIYAVILA KARAKKADU PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, UCHAKADA P.O.NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV R.GOPAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
1 ARTHUR DAVID AGED 55 YEARS S/O LATE THEPPILOS NADAR, VALIYAVILA KARAKKADU PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KULATHOOR DESOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, UCHAKADA P.O.NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 506.
BY ADV. MATHEW KURIAKOSE
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 529 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2021
In O.P.(C.) No.989/2021, the order of the lower
Appellate Court, refusing to grant order of status quo was under challenge. It was disposed of with notice to respondent who did not chose to appear. The respondent therein has now come up with the Review Petition contending that O.S. No.768/2020, from which the impugned order arises, is a suit to set aside a compromise decree in O.S. No.856/2015, is not maintainable in law. The apprehension of the review petitioner is that in the light of paragraph 4 in the judgment of this Court making it clear that any construction will be subject to the decision of the suit may persuade the trial courts or the lower Courts to assume that this Court has observed that the suit itself is maintainable.
3
RP NO. 529 OF 2021
or not. The observation was only to the effect that if any construction is made, that will be subservient to the suit relating to that property. However, if the suit is ultimately found to be not sustainable on legal grounds, naturally the observation of this Court will have no consequence.
The Review Petition is closed with the above observation.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE
SKP/13-9
RP NO. 529 OF 2021
4
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: NIL
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is necessary to clarify that the maintainability of the underlyingSuit is a question for the trial court.
Whether the prior order's observation on property construction implied the maintainability of the suit.
Whether the review petitioner's right to challenge the non-maintainability of the suit is preserved.
SELVARAJ
ARTHUR DAVID
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
