Dismissed

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

Kerala HC8 Jan 2024OP(C)/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by a female petitioner under O IX r 9 and by collaterality for reopening of the judgment in O S. The Court held that a delay of over six years (2290 days) in restoring the suit cannot be condoned on grounds of the petitioner's age (75 years) or employment in Tamil Nadu. It also found no merit as the petitioner had no proprietary interest after he

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition failed and stands dismissed.

Letchmi Vs K.D.H.P Company Private Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024/18TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO.37 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP No.87/2018 IN OS 290/2012 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVIKULAM ORDER IN CMA 8/2022 AND OS 290/2022 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT, DEVIKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

LETCHMI, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O. ARUMUGHAN, RESIDING AT DGP XIII/60, EAST DIVISION, CHOKKANADU, MADUPETTY ESTATE, K.D.H VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685613.

¶9

BY ADVS. VISHNU DAS A.A.SHIBI SRUTHI DAS GAYATHRI A.L. MANJUSHA K.U.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1 K.D.H.P COMPANY PRIVATE LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, K.D.H.P HOUSE, MUNNAR, MUNNAR.P.O, K.D.H VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, MOOLAKADAI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685612.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, K.D.H.P COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MADUPETTY ESTATE, K.D.H. VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, MOOLAKADAI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685612.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C) No.37 of 2024

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated, this the 8^th January, 2024

¶18

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.290/2012 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, which was subsequently transferred to the Munnar Special Tribunal and renumbered as MTOP No.150/2014. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the counter-claim preferred by the respondent Company was allowed. The issue pertains to a line room allotted

¶19

to the petitioner in her capacity as an employee of the 1^st respondent Company.

¶20

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9 to restore the suit back on files vide Ext.P4, along with Ext.P3 application to condone the delay of 2290 days. The same was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Devikulam as per Ext.P5 order, challenging which the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 C.M.A. before Sub Court, Devikulam. The same was also dismissed vide Ext.P7 order, which

¶21

OP(C) No.37 of 2024

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

is under challenge in this Original Petition.

¶24

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/

¶25

plaintiff and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent Company, which is the contesting respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed at Tamil Nadu and she was not aware of the decree being passed

¶26

against her. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a woman, aged 75 years and, therefore, the petitioner could not monitor the suit and the proceedings properly. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was illegally terminated from the service of the 1^st respondent Company in the year 2007 and an industrial dispute in this regard is pending.

¶27

The suit was filed when petitioner was served with a notice requiring of her to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule building.

¶28

4. Per contra, the prayer sought for in this Original Petition was seriously opposed by the

¶29

OP(C) No.37 of 2024

¶30

- 4 -

¶31

learned counsel for the 1^st respondent. It was pointed out that the application to restore the suit back on files was filed after six years from the date of passing the decree. The fact that the petitioner is aged 75 years, or for that matter, she was engaged in a job at Tamil Nadu, are not a sufficient reasons to condone a whopping delay of six years, is the Counsel's submission.

¶32

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, there is a delay of more than six years. The reasons stated is that the petitioner is aged 75 years and that she was employed at Tamil Nadu, both of which can hardly be recognised as sufficient cause to condone the huge delay of 2290 days. No plausible explanation, much less any sufficient reason, is either pleaded or proved to condone the inordinate delay, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The law protects the

¶33

OP(C) No.37 of 2024

¶34

- 5 -

¶35

diligent and not the indolent. The very purpose of limitation will be frustrated, if Ext.P3 application is allowed condoning the delay of 2290 days. It would certainly jeopardise the thrust for rule of law, if the matter, which has attained a quietus between the parties prior to six years by a decree, is interfered with and upset after six years, without any sufficient or just cause.

¶36

6. This Court also ascertained the bare minimum merits of the matter, for the purpose of adjudicating the question as to whether the whopping delay of 2290 days has to be condoned. This Court notice that the petitioner was terminated in the year 2007, after which, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate claim over the plaint schedule building. The petitioner has no apparent right to retain possession of the same, once her employment is terminated. The petitioner has no case that the petitioner has any proprietary or titular interest in the plaint schedule property and that it remains undisputed that

¶37

OP(C) No.37 of 2024

¶38

- 6 -

¶39

the same was allotted to the petitioner in her capacity, as an employee of the 1^st respondent Company. Although, an industrial dispute in respect of termination is stated to be pending, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to submit as regards the status of the said industrial dispute.

¶40

7. Therefore, on merits as well, there is little ground to interfere with the well considered orders of the learned Munsiff, as also, the learned Sub Judge.

¶41

In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

¶45

OP(C) No.37 of 2024

¶46

- 7 -

¶47

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 37/2024

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.04.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MTOP NO.150/2014 OF THE MUNNAR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL DATED 18.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 18/2022 IN OS NO. 290/2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 11.03.2022.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1/2022 IN OS NO. 290/2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 11.03.2022.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 18/2022 AND IA 1/2022 IN OS NO.290/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 29.09.2022.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 18.10.2022.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMA NO.8/2022 BY THE SUB COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 30.06.2023.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

M. X. Judson Vs P.A. Barrid @ Joy

N.T. Anandan Nair Vs P.M. Gangadaran

Ambli Vs Vipindas.K

Bhasi Koodathil Vs Kerala State Ex-Services League

G.Subha Varma Raja Vs Peroor Karunalloor Bhagavathy Kshetra Yogam Trust

Subhash Vs Bhavani