Allowed

Abdul Rasheed v. Thajudeen

Kerala HC11 Jan 2024OP(C)/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order by the Munsiff Court that had closed an application for a measurement commission due to the petitioner's failure to produce a ladder sketch. The Court held that measurement is essential for a suit involving fixation of boundaries and directed the Taluk Surveyor to produce the sketch if necessary, while expediting the trial.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P5 order; direction issued to Taluk Surveyor to produce ladder sketch and to Munsiff to expedite disposal within six months.

Abdul Rasheed Vs Thajudeen — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 4 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OS 299/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶7

ABDUL RASHEED AGED 58 YEARS S/O. UNNUNNI, THANATH VEEDU, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYUR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690508 BY ADVS. R.PADMARAJ M.J.BENNY JOMY GEORGE CHITRA N. DAS SAJEEVAN V.T. RISHAB S. RONA ANN SIBY ASWIN ASHOK V.

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1 THAJUDEEN AGED 46 YEARS S/O SHARAFUDEEN , PUTHENVEETTIL, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYUR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690508 2 SHARAFUDEEN AGED 73 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMAD SHAREEF, PUTHENVEETTIL, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYUR VILLAGE KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690508 3 SADIQUE AGED 43 YEARS S/O SHARAFUDEEN, PUTHENVEETTIL, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYUR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690508 4 KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING, KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 690572 BY ADVS. MEENA A RAJAN T R VINOD RAVINDRANATH(K/001479/1999) K.C.KIRAN(K/621/2006) M.R.MINI(K/000153/1996) M.DEVESH(K/1253/2012) ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH(K/000106/2019)

¶10

O.P.(C).No. 4 of 2024

¶11

THAREEQ ANVER K.(K/000942/2018) NIVEDHITHA PREM.V(K/001822/2023) T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)(K/280/1973)

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

O.P.(C).No. 4 of 2024

¶14

..3..

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2024

¶17

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.299/2015 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. He is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, which dismissed an application for issuance of a measurement commission. The commission

¶18

application was in fact closed, alleging non co-operation on the part of the

¶19

petitioner/plaintiff, especially in the matter of producing the ladder sketch, which is allegedly

¶20

required for measuring out the property.

¶21

2. This Court is not satisfied with the reason

¶22

for which the commission application stands closed. When the Taluk Surveyor has been deputed to measure out the property, the ladder sketch is something which can be provided by him and the

¶23

O.P.(C).No. 4 of 2024

¶24

..4..

¶25

petitioner cannot be found fault with seriously for not producing the ladder sketch.

¶26

3. As a matter of fact, this being a suit for fixation of boundary, measurement of the property is a sine qua non , without which the suit cannot be adjudicated properly. The relief sought for can only be refused in the absence of proper measurement, which course will not serve the interest of justice.

¶27

3. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 order is set aside Ext.P1 application will stand allowed. There will be a direction to the Taluk Surveyor to produce the ladder sketch, if the same is essential for measuring out the property, so as to identify the same and to fix the boundary. This being a suit of the year 2015, there will be a direction to the learned Munsiff to expedite the execution of a commission, if necessary by

¶28

O.P.(C).No. 4 of 2024

¶29

..5..

¶30

issuing directions and to try and dispose of the matter expeditiously, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy

¶31

of this judgment.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶34

¶35

O.P.(C).No. 4 of 2024

¶36

..6..

¶37

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 4/2024

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 25.10.2017 FILED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN IA NO. 3005/2017 IN OS NO. 299/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A NO 3005/2017 IN O.S NO299/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM, Exhibit P3 TRUE OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED 17.01.2022 FILED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN IA NO. 3005/2017 IN OS NO. 299/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 25.03.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.3005/2017 IN OS NO. 299/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF, KAYAMKULAM IN IA NO. 3005/2017 IN OS NO. 299/2015

Abdul Rasheed v. Thajudeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheed v. Thajudeen

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

Koshy Varghese, Vs Annamma Mathew

Manju a Vs Mohanan

Alangad St.Marys Church @Nazrani Churuch, Vs Alangad Grama Panchayath

Nissarudeen Vs Anila

Joseph Vs Joseph George

Ranju. a Vs M/S Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Co. (P) Ltd.