Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.R.UNNIKRISHNA WARRIER versus NARASIMHA KAMMATHI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.R.UNNIKRISHNA WARRIER v. NARASIMHA KAMMATHI - Tr P(C) No. 316 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 3101 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr P(C) No. 316 of 2006()

1. P.R.UNNIKRISHNA WARRIER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. NARASIMHA KAMMATHI,
... Respondent

2. R.RAJESH,

3. JOY, PERUMBILLIL VEEDU,

4. MOLLY, DO. DO.

5. VIJAYALAKSHMI BHAI,

6. PANKAJASHI PILLAI,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :11/12/2006

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

T.P.C.NO.316 OF 2006

Dated this the 11 th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

Petitioner is second plaintiff in O.S.519/02 on the file of Munsiff Court, Vaikom. Respondents are defendants in that suit. This petition is filed under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer O.S.450/02, 460/02, 519/02 and 360/05 pending before Munsiff court, Vaikom to Munsiff court, Cherthala. Case of petitioner was that the subject matter of all the suits are connected and though he had filed an application in O.S.519/02 on 30.2.06, for an order of joint trial of all the cases, learned Munsiff has passed order in that application. It was contended that a commissioner was earlier appointed in O.S.406/02 and the commissioner submitted a report and sketch and Munsiff referred all the cases to Lok Adalath and at the Adalath a commissioner was appointed and the commissioner submitted a report and sketch, but petitioner is unwilling to settle the cases on the basis of the report and plan submitted by the commissioner beforethe Adalath and thereafter cases were re-transmitted to the Munsiff Court. It was alleged that learned Munsiff has recorded evidence in O.S.406/02 and compelled petitioner to agree for settlement in accordance with the plan and report submitted by the commissioner before the Adalath and in such circumstances all the cases are to be transferred to another court as petitioner apprehends that he will not get justice in that court. T.P.C.NO.316 OF 2006 2

2. On hearing learned counsel appearing for petitioner, I do not find any valid or sufficient ground to order transfer. If the grievance of petitioner is that no order was passed in the application filed for joint trial, remedy of the petitioner is to get an order in that application. Learned Munsiff, Vaikom, is directed to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, in the application filed for joint trial.

3. The apprehension of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Munsiff is bent upon directing petitioner to agree for a settlement in accordance with the report submitted before the the Lok Adalath and it was not agreeable for petitioner and therefore he may not be get a justice from that court. I do not think that learned Munsiff would either compel the petitioner to agree for settlement if he is not willing or decide the case in accordance with the plan and report submitted by the Adalath ignoring earlier report or evidence or the provisions of law. Learned Munsiff will decide the case based only on the evidence on record. Petition disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

bkn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.