R. Meera v. P.P. Krishnan
Case brief
What is this about?
This Order declares that raising inconsistent contentions defeats the parties' right to rest, applying Section 11 CPC to deny estoppel and exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the impugned order.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order Ext.P7 will stand set aside and the O.P(C) will stand allowed accordingly.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1945 OP(C) NO. 343 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.4/2022 IN OS 14/2019 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT IN I.A./6TH PLAINTIFF IN O.S.:
R. MEERA
D/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, 48/1972 G,
PERUMPOTTA ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
R.PARTHASARATHY
B.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN I.A. & PLAINTIFFS 1
TO5 & DEFENDANT IN O.S.:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether allowing additional written statement on inconsistent contentions violates the principle of estoppel.
Whether interference under Article 226 constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
Whether the trial court was justified in admitting additional written statement raising commercial lease contention.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
R. MEERA
- respondent
P.P. KRISHNAN
- respondent
RADHAKRISHNAN
- respondent
RADHABAI. N
- respondent
RATHI RADHAKRISHNAN
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court