High Court disposed of a revision petition seeking to set aside an interim injunction order. It directed the trial court to dispose of the underlying suit untrammelled by interim observations within six months.
Revision petition disposed of; Trial Court directed to dispose of O.S. 53/2018 within six months without being bound by interim observations.
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 C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 10 TH BHADRA, 1944
CRP NO. 134 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA 11/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPPAD, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.LATE VENGATTOOR MANAKKAL, NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPPAD, KIZHAKKE MALIKA, KOTHACHIRA AMSAM DESOM P.O., KOTHACHIRA PATTAMBI TALUK, PIN-679303.
BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 UNNIKRISHNAN .V.M, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.LATE VENGATTOOR MANAKKAL RAMAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD, AKATHIRYUR AMSOM DESAM, P.O.AKKIKKAVU, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN-680582. 2 VASUDEVAN V.T., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.LATE VENGATTOOR MANAKKAL THRIVIKRAMAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD, KOTHACHIRA AMSAM DESOM, P.O.KOTHACHIRA, PATTAMBI TALUK, PIN679303. 3 ADDL.R3.MURALI (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) 4 ADDL.R4.SREEJITH.M.K (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RAJIT SRI.J.RAMKUMAR LAKSHMI V.PILLAI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 134 OF 2021
2
ORDER
The revision petition is filed, to set aside the order in CMA No.11/2018 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Ottapalam (Appellate Court).
CRP NO. 134 OF 2021
3
respondents filed CMA No.11/2018 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment
allowed the appeal and passed the following directions:
“(i). The Trial Court is directed to appoint a Commissioner to monitor the activities which are taking place at the petition schedule property till the disposal of the suit (excluding the temple, rituals and connected activities).
(ii). The commissioner shall be at liberty to inspect the property and to conduct enquiries with respect to the activities which are taking place at the petition schedule property.
(iii). The respondent shall file a statement of the income received from the petition schedule property (excluding temple) and also the expenditure statement before the trial court before the seventh day of every month with respect to the previous month till the disposal of the suit.
(iv). With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. Considering the facts of the case, I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.”
The impugned judgment is improper, irregular and perverse. Hence the Civil Revision Petition.
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Santheep Ankarath,
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4
CRP NO. 134 OF 2021
Court has not admitted the revision petition and no interim order has been passed.
CRP NO. 134 OF 2021
5
observations made by the courts below in the order in I.A 302/2018 in O.S No.53/2018 and in the impugned judgment, which were passed only for the purpose of considering the interim relief. The said course will do complete justice to both parties.
In the result, the revision petition is disposed of, by directing the Court of the Munsiff, Pattambi, to consider and dispose of O.S. 53/2018, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observations made by the courts below in the aforesaid order and the impugned judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of completion of the pre-trial steps.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE
ma/1.9.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court in CMA No.11/2018.
Whether the Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 should be invoked to disturb the arrangements made in the impugned judgment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRIPPAD
UNNIKRISHNAN .V.M
VASUDEVAN V.T.
C.S. DIAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
