The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition as infructuous. The bench held that since the underlying petition from which the recall was sought had not been admitted and passed no interim orders, nothing further survived, though the petitioner could challenge subsequent orders.
Dismissal of the original petition as infructuous.
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.
OP(C) NO. 986 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 31ST BHADRA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 986 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 301/2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
KARUNAGAPPALLY
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
G.HARIKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MUKKATTU VEEDU, KOTTANKULANGARA, CHAVARA MURI CHAVARA P.O, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, PROPRIETOR IN ROOMS BEARING NO. C.P VI/98 TO VI/100 KOTTANKULANGARA WARD CHAVARA PANCHAYATH PIN CODE NO 691 583.
BY ADV P.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT:
LALITHA SUDHAKARAN, AGED 67 YEARS
W/O. SUDHAKARAN ,REJI MANDIRAM, CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O, OWNER OF ROOMS BEARING NO C.P VI/98 TO VI/100 KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN CODE NO. 691 583.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 986 OF 2019
2
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed to call for the records in O.S No.301/2017 of the Court of the Munsiff, Karunagappally, and peruse the scope of I.A 683/2019 (Ext.P8) filed in the suit and direct the Rent Controller, Karunagappally, to prohibit all the operations in the plaint schedule property.
Even though the original petition was filed on 21.3.2019, this Court has not admitted the original petition and has not passed any interim order. At this distance of time, I assume that nothing further survives in this original petition. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge any subsequent order, the original petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-C.S.DIAS
ma/22/9/2022
JUDGE
OP(C) NO. 986 OF 2019
3
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 986/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.A 1160/2017 IN O.S 301/2017 DATED 03/07/2017 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION PETITION FILED UNDER SEC 11(3) BY LAND LADY DATED BEFORE RENT CONTROLLER KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 10/10/2017 IN R.C (OP) 4/2017 |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 09/01/2018 FILED BY PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS THE TENANT R.C (O.P) 4/2017 BEFORE RENT CONTROLLEER KARUNAGAPPALLY |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SEEKING TO RESTORATION VIDE IA 1183/2018 DATED 4/07/2018 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE EX-PARTEE ORDER ISSUED BY RENT CONTROLLER KARUNAGAPALLY DATD 10/12/2018 |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION IN APPEAL |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 683/2019 IN O.S 301/2017 BEFORE RENT CONTROL COURT KARUNAGAPALLY DATED 19/03/2019 |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE ADVANCE PETITION DATED 19/03/2019 |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO GRAPHS |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE BILLS DATED 20/03/2019 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an original petition calling for records in a subordinated suit that has not been admitted is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner's right to challenge future orders is preserved while dismissing the petition as infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.HARIKUMAR
LALITHA SUDHAKARAN
C.S. DIAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
