Allowed

M/S Insight Media City (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.v.S.Pillai

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023OP(C)/1754/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenged an order dismissing an application for Case Management Hearing due to expired time limits. The High Court held that expiration of the timeline does not negate the statutory mandate to hold the hearing and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; direction to Sub Judge to conduct Case Management Hearing under Order XV-A CPC.

M/S Insight Media City (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶4

OP(C) NO. 1754 OF 2023

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CS 32/2020 OF COMMERCIAL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶6

(PRINCIPAL SUB COURT)

¶7

ORIGINAL PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 M/S INSIGHT MEDIA CITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. FLOWER TV, ABM TOWER, KADAVANTHRA KOCHI-682020, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT XI/234-B, NEAR GANDHI SQUARE MANNED, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 686664 2 SREEKANTAN NAIR AGED 63 YEARS S/O RAMAN PILLAI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S INSIGHT MEDIA CITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD., FLOWERS T.V, ABM TOWER, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI- 682020, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT XI/234-B, NEAR GANDHI SQUARE MANEED, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686664 BY ADVS. VIVEK NAIR P. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) D.JAYAKRISHNAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON ANANDA PADMANABHAN NIDHI BALACHANDRAN UTHARA A.S GOUTHAM KRISHNA U.B.

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

K.V.S.PILLAI AGED 68 YEARS, S/O VASUDEVAN PILLAI (LATE), PROPRIETOR, EAST COAST AUDIO ENTERTAINMENTS, T.C 9/1020/23, SWANTHAM, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695010, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, G. KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O KRISHNA PANICKER, ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, EAST COAST AUDIO ENTERTAINMENT, T. C. NO. 9/1020/23, SWANTHAM, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695010 RESIDING AT KALLINGAL, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001 BY ADVS. Dinesh Mathew J Murikan K.A.ABHILASH(K/123/2008) VINOD S. PILLAI(K/631/2012) MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.(K/1451/2019) NAYANA VARGHESE(K/283/2021) AHAMMAD SACHIN K.(K/001814/2019) RIA VARGHESE(K/1367/2023) K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)(K/116/2014) JERRY PETER(K/3088/2023) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

O.P.(C).NO.1754 of 2023

¶12

..2..

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2023

¶15

The defendants in C.S.No.32/2020 before the Commercial Court, Thiruvanathapuram is the petitioners herein. The defendants preferred I.A.No.4/2022 in terms of Order XV-A of the C.P.C. to conduct the first Case Management Hearing in the suit afore-referred, which was, however, dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, vide Ext.P11 order. The learned Sub Judge found that, the time limit prescribed in Order XV-A Rule 1 has been already elapsed and that Order XV A provides for Case Management Hearing at any time during the trial, wherefore, such hearing can be conducted, if found necessary, later. Being seriously aggrieved of the above order, the defendants have preferred the instant Original Petition.

¶16

2. Heard Sri. C. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Nayana Varghese, on

¶17

O.P.(C).NO.1754 of 2023

¶18

..3..

¶19

behalf of the Sri.Dinesh Mathew Muricken, for the respondent/plaintiff.

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the premise which has been adopted by the learned Sub Judge in the impugned order, in respect of the expiry of the period stipulated in Order XV-A Rule 1 and in respect of the claim that Case Management Hearing can be conducted at any time during trial, both, are erroneous. Learned counsel would point out that, efflux of the time stipulated in Rule 1 of Order XV A is no reason for non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Order XV-A. It is emphasised that, the language used in Rule 1 of Order XV-A is that the Court 'shall' hold the first Case Management Hearing within the time limit stipulated therein. As regards conduct of Case Management Hearing during trial, the learned counsel would invite the attention of this Court to Rule 5 of Order XV-A,

¶21

O.P.(C).NO.1754 of 2023

¶22

..4..

¶23

to point out that, the provision is only supplementary, enabling the Court to conduct Case Management Hearing during trial as well, which cannot be a substitute to the mandate to conduct a Case Management Hearing in terms of Rule 1.

¶24

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, the sole intention of the petitioner herein is to wriggle out of the prosecution proceedings, which are pending against

¶25

him for violation of the injunction order. The non-compliance of Order XV-A, now propounded, is nothing but a ruse to protract the prosecution proceedings.

¶26

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on

¶27

both sides, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel, merely because the time limit stipulated

¶28

O.P.(C).NO.1754 of 2023

¶29

..5..

¶30

in Rule 1 of Order XV-A, has expired, the court concerned cannot hold that the first Case Management Hearing need not be conducted at all. If such hearing could not be conducted within the stipulated time due to Covid-19 pandemic, the same ought to have been conducted immediately thereafter. As it is a responsibility cast on the Court, the delay in preferring an application seeking conduct of hearing at the instance of the petitioner herein, offers no ground for non compliance. This Court also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel that Case Management Hearing during trial in terms of Rule 5 is only supplemental, enabling the Court to conduct such hearing during trial as well; and not a substitute for the hearing contemplated under Rule 1. Therefore, Ext.P11 order is set aside and there will be a direction to the learned Sub Judge to conduct Case Management Hearing in terms of Order XV-A of the C.P.C. On account of the apprehension

¶31

O.P.(C).NO.1754 of 2023

¶32

..6..

¶33

espoused by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clarified that the Case Management hearing directed above should not stand

¶34

in the way of the court below in proceeding with

¶35

the prosecution petition pending against the petitioner herein. It is wholly left to the discretion of the learned Sub Judge as to whether the prosecution petition has to be considered immediately, or to be considered along with the suit after trial.

¶36

Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶37

¶38

O.P.(C).NO.1754 of 2023

¶39

..7..

¶40

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1754/2023

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN CS 32/2020 DATED 11/11/2020
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2020 IN IA 1/2020
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 29.10.2021 FILED BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS
Exhibit P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED APRIL, 2022 FILED BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS TO THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE IA 3/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF A DETAILED OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.08.2022 IN IA 3/2022 FILED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PLAINTIFF
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.07.2022 FILED BY THE WITNESS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE IA 4/2022 FILED BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2023 IN IA 4/2022

M/S Insight Media City (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.v.S.Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Insight Media City (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.v.S.Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Rajesh Kumar Vs Shukapuram Kuries Private Limited

Madhavi Vs Subramanian

Dr. Manoj M.S Vs Suria

Dwaraswamy Vs Mani

R. Ambikakumari Vs Kerala State Housing Board

Sathyan Vs Visma