Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

B.R.VALSALA, WIFE OF LATE VIVEKANANDAN versus LEKSHMI SUMATHY, AGED 73 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


B.R.VALSALA, WIFE OF LATE VIVEKANANDAN v. LEKSHMI SUMATHY, AGED 73 YEARS - WP(C) No. 30838 of 2003(U) [2007] RD-KL 10848 (21 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30838 of 2003(U)

1. B.R.VALSALA, WIFE OF LATE VIVEKANANDAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. LEKSHMI SUMATHY, AGED 73 YEARS,
... Respondent

2. SANTHA, AGED 53 YEARS, OF DO. DO.

3. SYAMALA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

4. GOPU, AGED 47 YEARS, OF DO. DO.

5. KOMALA, AGED 41 YEARS, OF DO. DO.

6. MANGALAM, AGED 39 YEARS, OF DO. DO.

7. RAJESWARI, AGED 37 YEARS, OF DO. DO.

8. SREEKUMARI, AGED 35 YEARS, OF DO. DO.

9. SUKUMARAN, T.C.20/24 OF DO. DO.

For Petitioner :SRI.V.SURESH

For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :21/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.30838 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 21st June, 2007



JUDGMENT

The strenuous and persuasive submissions of Mr.V.Suresh, counsel for the petitioner notwithstanding, I am unable to agree with him when he says that Ext.P7 order is so wholly unreasonable as to warrant correction by this court in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution which is exceptional and is expected to be invoked only when it is absolutely necessary. The learned Munsiff has in Ext.P7 stated that the order which was sought to be reviewed as per the I.A. upon which Ext.P7 is order passed is a well reasoned one. Unfortunately copy of that order is yet to be produced by the petitioner. But it must be noticed that several observations touching the merits of the suit has been made by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P7. Those observations were unwarranted though the ultimate decision to dismiss the I.A. was certainly justified. I dismiss the Writ Petition confirming Ext.P7. But at the same time I permit the petitioner to file objections to the two commissioner's report referred to in Ext.P7 and to cross-examine the Commissioners concerned during trial. If the learned Munsiff is convinced on the basis of the evidence which comes to be on record regarding the Commissioner's reports that a W.P.C.No.30838/03 - 2 - measurement is necessary, confirmation of Ext.P7 by this court will not stand in the way of the learned Munsiff issuing a commission for measurement. In order to enable the compliance of the above direction meaningfully, there will be a direction that after the entire evidence in the suit comes on record, the parties will be heard initially on the question of acceptability of the commission report and an order be given regarding the same.

srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE


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.