Allowed

Sajan Vincent v. Stanly Jose

Kerala HC22 Feb 2023OP(C)/329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought supervisory intervention under Article 226/227 to ensure disposal of civil applications (impleadment and attachment lift) within a reasonable timeframe. The Court directed the lower court to decide these applications expeditiously within three weeks after hearing the petitioner and first respondent but before formally notifying other respondents.

What did the court decide?

Directed Additional Munsiff Court, Alappuzha to dispose of IA Nos 1 & 2 of 2022 in OS 816/2019 expeditiously within three weeks, hearing petitioner and 1st respondent, before serving notice on other f

Sajan Vincent Vs Stanly Jose — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

OP(C) No.329 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 329 OF 2023

¶7

TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF IA NOS 1 AND 2 OF 2022 IN OS 816/2019
OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SAJAN VINCENT,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O VINCENT,
THEKKEPALAKKAL, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA,, PIN -
688521
BY ADVS.
C.G.BINDU
AJITHA C.G.
K.J.SARANYA RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STANLY JOSE,AGED 86 YEARS,S/O JOSEPH, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶12

2 LUCY RANI,AGED 64 YEARS,D/O ANTONY, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 688521,

¶13

3 RUBY ANTONY,AGED 64 YEARS,D/O ANTONY, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶14

4 JOSEPH JOJI,AGED 63 YEARS,S/O ANTONY, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶15

5 SHIBU SOLOMON,AGED 61 YEARS,S/O (LATE) DR. SOLOMON T. JOSE, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶16

6 SHEEBA SOLOMON,AGED 58 YEARS,D/O (LATE) DR. SOLOMON T. JOSE, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶17

7 SHEELA SOLOMON,AGED 57 YEARS,D/O (LATE) DR. SOLOMON T. JOSE, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶18

¶19

OP(C) No.329 of 2023

¶20

8 SHEEN SOLOMON,AGED 54 YEARS,S/O (LATE) DR. SOLOMON T. JOSE, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶21

9 SABU SOLOMON,AGED 54 YEARS,S/O (LATE) DR. SOLOMON T. JOSE, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶22

10 SUMA SOLOMON,AGED 52 YEARS,D/O (LATE) DR. SOLOMON T. JOSE, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶23

11 SEEMA SOLOMON,AGED 50 YEARS,D/O (LATE) DR. SOLOMON T. JOSE, THEKKEPALAKKAL, CHETTIKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688521

¶24

12 VIJAYAMMA DAS (DIED),D/O LUDHUVINA VINCENT, KOOTTUNGAL, MARARIKULAM NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688549

¶25

13 VIMALAMMA ANTONY,AGED 61 YEARS,D/O LUDHUVINA VINCENT, KOOTTUNGAL, MARARIKULAM NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688549

¶26

14 SOSAMMA BENNY,AGED 59 YEARS,D/O REJEENA, KURISINKAL, ARTHUNKAL P.O., CHERTHALA,, PIN - 688530

¶27

15 MAGI THANKACHAN,AGED 51 YEARS,D/O REJEENA, ERESSERIL, THYKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688530

¶28

16 JOSY DOMINIC,AGED 57 YEARS,S/O REJEENA, CHARANGATTU, CHETHY P.O., ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688530

¶29

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023,

¶30

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C) No.329 of 2023

C.S DIAS,J.

--------------------------OP(C) No.329 of 2023

¶35

-----------------------------

¶36

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2023. JUDGMENT

¶37

The original petition is filed to direct the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha, to consider and dispose of IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 in OS No.816/2019, within a reasonable time period.

¶38

Pursuant to the order dated 8.2.2023 passed by this Court, the learned Additional Munsiff, by communication dated 14.2.2023, has informed this Court that IA No.2/2022 is filed to implead the petitioner as additional 16^th defendant in the suit. IA No.1/2022 is to lift the order of attachment before judgment over the petition schedule property. The service of notice on the defendants 5, 6 and 8 is yet to be completed. The court below would dispose of the applications within three weeks after the service of notice is completed on the respondents.

¶39

¶40

OP(C) No.329 of 2023

¶41

Heard; Smt.C.G Bindu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶42

On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record and taking into account the fact that IA No.2/2022 is filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit and IA No.1/2022 is filed to lift the order of attachment over the petitioner’s property, I am of the firm view that the court below is to be directed to consider and dispose of the above applications, after affording the petitioner and the first respondent an opportunity of being heard and before service of notice is completed on the other respondents, who are only formal parties in the above applications.

¶43

In the result, after perusing the communication of the learned Additional Munsiff, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I direct the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha, to consider and dispose of IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 in OS No.816/2019, in

¶44

¶45

OP(C) No.329 of 2023

¶46

accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner and the first respondent an opportunity of being heard.

¶47

The original petition is ordered accordingly.

¶48

SD/-

¶49

sks/22.2.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶50

¶51

OP(C) No.329 of 2023

¶52

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 329/2023

¶53

`PETITIONER EXHIB` `Exhibit P1`	`ITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 21.3.2016` `EXECUTED BY BURLEIGH IN FAVOUR OF THE` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ABOVE` `SAID BURLEIGH JOSE DATED 19.5.2016` `ISSUED BY CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED` `3.4.2017 FOR THE PERIOD 2017-2018 ISSUED` `TO THE PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE,` `ARYAD SOUTH`
`Exhibit P3(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED` `4.11.2019 FOR THE PERIOD 2019-2020` `ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE` `OFFICE, ARYAD SOUTH`
`Exhibit P3(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED` `25.5.2020 FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021` `ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE` `OFFICE, ARYAD SOUTH`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `31.3.2022 IN O.S. NO.319/2017 OF` `PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA`
`Exhibit P4(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31.3.2022` `IN O.S. NO.319/2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF` `COURT, ALAPPUZHA`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE` `DATED 10.8.2022 ISSUED FROM S.R.O.,` `ALAPPUZHA`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.` `NO.816/2019 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `HEREIN AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 16` `BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF` `COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 10.10.2019`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1/2022 IN O.S.` `NO.816/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL` `MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED` `17.11.2022`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.2/2022 IN O.S.` `NO.816/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL` `MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED` `17.11.2022`

Sajan Vincent v. Stanly Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan Vincent v. Stanly Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Saseendran Vs Deity Installed in Vakkom Puthen Mukkaluvattom Bhagavathy Temple at Vakkom

Shanmughan Vs the Peninsula Chits (P) Ltd.

Cheemenkai Lakshmi Vs P.v.Sumesh

R. Gopakumaran Pillai Vs Sreekrishna Vilasam Chit Funds Chavara Pvt. Ltd.

Jiji Elammanna Vs Calicut City Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Gokul G Nair Vs Eswaran Namboodiri