Allowed

Unnikrishnan S v. Murali

Kerala HC25 Sept 2023OP(C)/94/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the original petition and set aside the impugned order of the Munsiff Court rejecting the petitioners' application for service by paper publication. The Court granted an extension of two weeks to complete the service steps due to inadvertent omissions by the counsel's office, preventing prejudice to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P4) was set aside. Petitioners granted two weeks to complete service steps as ordered on 14.07.2022.

Unnikrishnan S Vs Murali — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 94 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IA 4/2022 IN OS 569/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT,

¶7

MAVELIKKARA

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

1 UNNIKRISHNAN S AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KRISHNA KRIPA, PADA SOUTH PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518

¶10

2 BEENA UNNIKRISHNAN W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KRISHNA KRIPA, PADA SOUTH PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518 BY ADVS. ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN LAYA SIMON

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

1 MURALI AGED 42 YEARS, S/O KUTTAPPAN, SUDHA BHAVANAM, CHOORALLOORE, THEKKEKKARA PO, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690107 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM SAMSON K.SURESH KUMAR (KURATHIKADU)(K/257/1997) LOVELY SAMSON(K/86-A/1999)

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

O.P.(C).No. 94 of 2023

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

=========================

¶18

O.P.(C).No. 94 of 2023

¶19

========================== Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners impugn Ext.P4 order, whereby, the learned Munsiff's Court, Mavelikara, rejected their application for time to take steps for completing service to the plaintiff through paper publication – as was ordered on 14.07.2022 – holding that they were negligent in prosecuting it, since they had been given sufficient time for it, including as a last chance, vide order dated 26.07.2022.

¶22

Sri.Arun Mathew Vadakkan – learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that, even though the learned Munsiff had granted enough time to his clients, there were certain omissions from the side of the staff of his counsel's office, resultant to which, steps could not be taken as ordered by the said Court. He also conceded that the learned Trial Court could have done nothing more than to have issued Ext.P4; and, therefore, sought the indulgence of this Court to grant his clients one more chance, saying that, otherwise, they would be shut out from prosecuting their defence properly.

¶23

Sri.Abraham Samson – learned counsel for the respondent,

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

O.P.(C).No. 94 of 2023

¶26

submitted that no error can be found against Ext.P4 because, as has been recorded therein, even though the petitioners were granted time repeatedly, including as a last chance vide order dated 26.07.2022, the paper publication had not been done. He submitted that, therefore, this writ petition is only deserving of being dismissed.

¶27

I must say that there is force in the afore submissions of Sri.Abraham Samson; and as I have already said above, no mistake can be attributed to the learned Judge in having issued Ext.P4.

¶28

However, the fact remains that petitioners had applied to serve notice to the plaintiff – by paper publication; and this was also allowed on 14.07.2022. Even though they were given a last chance to do so, through the order dated 26.07.2022, they say that their counsel did not intimate them properly; and, therefore, that on account of such an inadvertent omission, they have now been put to prejudice.

¶29

It is fundamental in the process of litigation, that parties ought not be put to detriment on account of omissions caused during the processes, particularity at the hands of the counsel or their office.

¶30

In the afore perspective, and as a last latitude to the petitioners, I allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P4, thus

¶31

O.P.(C).No. 94 of 2023

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

granting them two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to complete steps in terms of the order of the Trial Court dated 14.07.2022; and if this is done, then the said Court will deal with the suit in terms of law, affording necessary opportunities to both sides.

¶34

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶35

anm

¶36

O.P.(C).No. 94 of 2023

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 94/2023

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF O.S.NO.569/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 7.12.20215 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.S. NO. 569/2015 DATED 4.2.2017 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.4/2022 IN O.S.NO.569/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2022 IN I.A.NO. 4/2022 IN O.S.NO.569/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.36/2019 IN O.S.NO.569/2015 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE E.A. NO. 179/2022 IN E.P.36/2019 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA

Unnikrishnan S v. Murali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan S v. Murali

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

1. Lekshmy Sreedhar Vs Vasantha

M/S Kent Constructions (Pvt.Ltd) Vs the Executive Engineer

Vincent. P Vs Mohan K.G , (Age and Father’S Name Not Known to the Petitioner)

K.Kannan Vs the Managing Director

K.Kannan Vs the Kerala Water Authority, Represented by Its Managing Director

Easy Infra Inc. Vs Fact -Rcf- Building Products Ltd. (Frbl)