Allowed

M/S Idukki Cable Vision Private Limited v. Asst.Engineer

Kerala HC9 Jan 2024OP(C)/33/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Munsiff Court to hear and dispose of the review application (Ext.P5) expeditiously within two weeks, maintaining status quo until then. The injunction had been vacated due to non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 proviso, not on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Munsiff Court to hear and dispose of Ext.P5 application expeditiously within two weeks from receipt of judgment copy; status quo maintained until disposal.

M/S Idukki Cable Vision Private Limited Vs Asst.Engineer — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 19TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 33 OF 2024

¶6

OS 212/2023 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVIKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

1M/S IDUKKI CABLE VISION PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING OFFICE AT BUILDING NO. 341-B, ST. GEORGE CHURCH
COMPLEX, ADIMALY P O, ADIMALY, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM TALUK, , PIN - 685561

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS P R O SRI. SANTHOSHKUMAR MM

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

T.R.VISHNU

¶12

V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA

¶13

RESPONDENT( S )/DEFENDANT:

¶14

1ASST.ENGINEER,
KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION,RAJAKKADU, RAJAKKADU VILLAGE,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, PIN - 685566

¶15

2 ASST. ENGINEER,

¶16

KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, RAJAKUMARY, RAJAKUMARY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, PIN - 685619

¶17

3 EX. ENGINEER,

¶18

KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ADIMALY, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, PIN - 685561

¶19

4 ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶20

KSEB, ELECTRICAL DIVION, CHITHIRAPURAM, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, PIN - 685565

¶21

5 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024, THE

¶23

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O.P.(C.) No.33 of 2024

¶25

¶26

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶27

O.P.(C.) No.33 of 2024

¶28

Dated this the 09^th day of January, 2024

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.212/2023 pending before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam. The petitioner was successful to obtain an order of injunction against the respondents, restraining them from dismantling the cable wires installed on the electric posts, until further orders. However, the interim injunction granted was vacated by Ext.P4 order, for noncompliance of the proviso to Order 39, Rule 3. Ext.P4 specifically finds that an affidavit in terms of the proviso has not been filed and that no document has been produced showing delivery of the copies to the respondents. The petitioner filed a review application vide Ext.P5. However, the same has not been considered. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is under threat of dismantling the cable wires

¶31

O.P.(C.) No.33 of 2024

¶32

¶33

installed in the electric posts. In the circumstances, petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Ext.P5 application, as also, to maintain the status quo, until the same is considered and orders passed.

¶34

This application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel pointed out that Ext.P5 application is not signed by the plaintiff, but by the counsel. It was further pointed out that the review petition is not preferred within time and that there is no accompanying petition to condone the delay. Learned counsel also picked up controversy with respect to the relief sought for in the original petition.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 can be allowed. This Court take note of the fact that the injunction got vacated for the technical reason of non compliance of the proviso to Order 39, Rule 3; and not on merits.

¶36

O.P.(C.) No.33 of 2024

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner had

¶39

produced the postal receipts before this Court, indicating that the notice has been sent to the respondents on the day succeeding the injunction order. However, this contention was resisted by learned counsel for the respondents as untrue. Whatever that be, the same is a matter for the trial Court to decide.

¶40

In the circumstances, the original petition is allowed, directing the Learned Munsiff, Devikulam to hear and dispose of Ext.P5 application expeditiously, at any rate, within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment, until which time, the parties shall maintain the status quo, with respect to the subject matter of Ext.P3 order.

¶41

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGE

SKP/09-01

O.P.(C.) No.33 of 2024

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 33/2024

¶49

`PETITIO`	`NER’S`	`EXHIBITS:`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO:212/2023` `ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT,` `DEVIKULAM`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO:1/2023 FILED IN O.S` `NO:212/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF` `COURT, DEVIKULAM`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED` `18.08.2023 IN I.A NO:1/2023 FILED IN O.S` `NO:212/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF` `COURT, DEVIKULAM`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO:1/2023 IN` `OS NO:212/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED` `MUNSIFF COURT, DEVILKULAM DATED 3-11-2023`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION IN OS` `NO:212/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF` `COURT, DEVILKULAM DATED 4-1-2024`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 19-8-2023`
`RESPOND`	`ENTS'`	`EXHIBITS:NIL`

¶50

TRUE COPY

¶51

P.A. TO JUDGE

M/S Idukki Cable Vision Private Limited v. Asst.Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Idukki Cable Vision Private Limited v. Asst.Engineer

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

Subhash Vs Bhavani

Letchmi Vs K.D.H.P Company Private Ltd.

Rev. Ajin Kamal.K.S Vs South Kerala Diocese (Skd)

Karthikeyan Vs Udayadevi

Suhara Vs Shemeem

Kunjamma Vs M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.