Sreejesh Unni Adikal Vs Parameswaran Adikal

1

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶3

2025:KER:23233

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶9

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS NO.1862 OF 2013
OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR)

¶10

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶11

1 SREEJESH UNNI ADIKAL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KUNNATH MADAM PARAMESWARAN UNNI ADIKAL, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK

¶12

2 NARENDRANATH ADIKAL, AGED 47, S/O.VADAKKEKUNNATH MADAM PRABHAKARAN ADIKAL (LATE), LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK

¶13

BY ADV Ravi Sankar P K

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶15

1 PARAMESWARAN ADIKAL, AGED 69, S/O.VAIDEEKAM KUNNATH MADAM KESAVAN ADIKAL (LATE), LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN 680 664

¶16

2 SANKARANANRAYANA ADIKAL, AGED 71, S/O.NANDANAM KUNNATH MADAM PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, BACKSIDE OF B.H.S.S DESOM, LOKAMALESARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN 680 668

¶17

3* PRADEEPKUMAR ADIKAL, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VAIDEEKAM NEELATH MADAM KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN 680 664 (DIED, LR’S IMPLEADED)

¶18

4 RAVEENDRANATHAN ADIKAL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.VAIDEEKAM MADAM NARAYANAN ADIKAL, LOKAMALESRAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN 680 664

¶19

5 NANDAKUMAR ADIKAL, AGED 61, S/O.VAIDEEKAM VADAKKEKUNNATH

¶20

2

¶21

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶22

2025:KER:23233

¶23

MADAM KESAVAN ADIKAL, LOKAMESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN 680 664

¶24

6 NEELAKANDAN ADIKAL, AGED 63 YEARS, VADAKKEKUNNATH MADAM, LOKAMESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN 680 664

¶25

7 PRAKASAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VAIDEEKAM VADAKKDATH MANA DURGADATHAN NAMBOODIRI, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 562.

¶26

8 SIVADASAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. VADAKKEDATH MANA NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, VELLATTANNOOR VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 562.

¶27

9 NARAYANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. VAIDEEKAM ATTUPURATH MANA PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, PAVUNNA DESOM & VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 562.

¶28

10 VINOD, AGED 42 YEARS, BHOOTHANATHAN NAMBOODIRI, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK -680 682.

¶29

11 KOCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, KOCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶30

12 USHAKUMARI, 63 YEARS, W/O.LATE PRADEEPKUMAR ADIKAL, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680 664

¶31

13 SAVITRI, 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE PRADEEPKUMAR ADIKAL, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680 664

¶32

14 GAYATRI DEVI, 36 YEARS, D/O LATE RADEEPKUMAR ADIKAL, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680 664 *[ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 12 TO 14 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 25.02.2025 IN IA 1/2023 IN OPC 132/2018]

¶33

BY ADVS.

¶34

SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶35

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.1.2018, THE COURT
ON 19.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

3

¶37

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶38

2025:KER:23233

¶39

JUDGMENT (Dated: 19^th March, 2025)

¶40

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1862 of 2013 on the

¶41

files of the Munsiffs Court, Kodungallur. Respondents 1 to 11 are the defendants therein. The suit was filed for declaration of the ‘Karaima services’ in the temple and for a further declaration that the said right enures only to the descendants through the male line. Defendants 1 to 10 filed a written statement resisting the suit. The

¶42

suit was posted for trial in the special list on 08.01.2018. The witness schedule, though filed earlier, was allowed, and summons was issued

¶43

by hand to the witnesses. The plaintiff was examined and sought time for examining the witnesses, but the said request was turned

¶44

down, and the defendants were allowed to adduce evidence. The petitioner also filed Ext.P4 application to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff and examine the witnesses, which is now dismissed as per

¶45

4

¶46

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶47

2025:KER:23233

¶48

Ext.P5, stating that the application is highly belated and the plaintiff

¶49

has not stated any acceptable reason for not taking steps earlier for issuing summons to the witnesses.

¶50

The counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.K.Ravisankar submits

¶51

that the list of witnesses to be examined on the plaintiff’s side, which was filed on 18.08.2016, and a certified copy of the same is produced as Ext.P7. The application was allowed on 05.01.2018 and directed

¶52

to issue summons by hand. The petitioner had obtained the summons by hand on 06.01.2018. 7^th being the Sunday, the trial commenced on 08.01.2018, i.e., on Monday and PW1 was examined. After the examination of the plaintiffs, the counsel for the petitioner had requested time to examine the witnesses, but it was turned out, therefore, Ext.P4 application was filed on 08.01.2018. The defence evidence started on 09.01.2018. He further argues that the plaintiff got only one day to serve the summons on the

¶53

5

¶54

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶55

2025:KER:23233 witnesses, and the very next day, the case was listed for trial, therefore, he could not examine the witnesses on 08.01.2018, and in the said circumstances, he sought for time. The court below has rejected the application only for the reason that it is a belated application, and there is no reason stated.

¶56

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial commenced on 31.03.2015, and the case was listed for framing issues on 31.03.2015 and was posted for pre-trial steps. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amendment application, which was allowed, an additional written statement was filed thereafter, and again it was posted for pre-trial steps on 8.9.2015, and one additional issue was also framed. Time was granted till 12.10.2015 for completing the pre-trial steps. While so, another application was filed as I.A.No.3084 of 2015 for impleading and that was allowed, notice was issued, they remained ex-parte, and D-12 and D-13 were made ex-parte, and

¶57

6

¶58

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶59

2025:KER:23233 another opportunity was given for pre-trial steps including the case

¶60

in the special list and posted to 1.4.2016 and thereafter to 11.7.2016. Time was given for steps again, and the case was posted to 14.08.2017 and 08.01.2018. Throughout this period, the petitioner did not take any steps to issue summons, and only on 04.01.2018, the application was moved, and Ext.P9 order was issued, therefore, it is a highly belated application, and it is only to protract the trial. The suit is of the year 2013, and the plaintiff is dragging on the suit; therefore, prayed that no interference is warranted with

¶61

Ext.P5.

¶62

It is true that the case was listed for trial on 08.01.2018,

¶63

and the application to issue summons was allowed only on 04.01.2018, and the summons was handed over to the counsel on 06.01.2018; thereafter, the case posted to 08.01.2018, since 07.01.2018 being Sunday. PW1 was examined on 08.01.2018, and

¶64

7

¶65

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶66

2025:KER:23233 the court below rejected the application for examination of the plaintiff's request. From the dates and events, it is seen that the plaintiff was given only one days’ time to serve the summons for examining the witnesses on 08.01.2018.

¶67

The request of the petitioner ought to have been granted

¶68

since the plaintiff wanted to examine the witness to prove their case. It cannot be said that the application is highly belated, the present application was filed as early as on 18.08.2016. It is true that the application was allowed only on 05.01.2018. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to examine the witnesses.

¶69

In the result, Ext.P5 stands set aside, and the trial court is directed to issue fresh summons to the witnesses; summons can also

¶70

be issued by hand to the plaintiff, inorder to save time. The trial court, after service of summons, shall fix the date for trial and

¶71

8

¶72

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶73

2025:KER:23233

¶74

complete the plaintiff's and defendants' evidence. The suit shall be

¶75

disposed of within four months from the date of completion of the

¶76

trial.

¶77

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶78

ss

¶79

9

¶80

O.P.(C) NO.132 OF 2018

¶81

2025:KER:23233

¶82

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 132/2018

¶83

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶84

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 1862/2013 ON` `THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KODUNGALLUR`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY` `DEFENDANTS 1 TO 10 IN O.S NO 1862/2013`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO` `1862/2013`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 105/2018 IN O.S NO. 1862/2013` `DATED 8-1-2018 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,` `KODUNGALLUR.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 9-1-2018 IN I.A NO.` `105/2018 IN O.S NO 1862/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF'S` `COURT, KODUNGALLUR.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LIST OF` `WITNESSES DATED 18-8-2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS` `ON 18-8-2016 IN O.S. 1862 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF` `MUNSIFF’S COURT, KODUNGALLUR`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF I.A. 45 OF 2018` `IN O.S. 1862 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF’S` `COURT, KODUNGALLUR`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `5-1-2018 IN I.A. 45 OF 2018 IN O.S. 1862 OF 2013` `ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF’S COURT, KODUNGALLUR`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCESS MEMO` `IN O.S. 1862 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF’S` `COURT, KODUNGALLUR`

Sreejesh Unni Adikal v. Parameswaran Adikal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejesh Unni Adikal v. Parameswaran Adikal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Hedge Finance Limited. Vs Mahesh M

V. K. Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Sree Kumar M. C.

M/S. Hedge Finance Limited Vs Jacob Mathew

Sathidevi A.L Vs Vijayakumar M

Sathidevi A.L Vs Vijayakumar M

Bindu Babu Vs Claudio Colangelo