Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HASSANARU PILLAI MUHAMMED ISMAIL versus RAMEEZA BEEVI, CHITHANYA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HASSANARU PILLAI MUHAMMED ISMAIL v. RAMEEZA BEEVI, CHITHANYA - WP(C) No. 34210 of 2005(V) [2007] RD-KL 11844 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34210 of 2005(V)

1. HASSANARU PILLAI MUHAMMED ISMAIL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. RAMEEZA BEEVI, CHITHANYA,
... Respondent

2. KABEENA, CHITHANYA, NAGROOR CHERI,

3. KHADEEJA UMMAL, OLIKKARA KAYALVARATHU

4. IBRAHIM KUTTY, OLIKKARA KAYALVARATHU

5. SHARAFFUDEEN, OLIKKARA

6. SAFIYATH BEEVI, OLIKKARA

For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

For Respondent :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :03/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.34210 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 3rd July, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner who filed I.A.No.4842/04 in O.S.No.286/03 on the files of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed in that case refusing to implead him as additional 5th defendant in the suit.

2. Heard Mr.M.Balagovindan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for respondents 3, 4 and 6.

3. Strong reliance was placed by Mr.Balagovindan on Ext.P3 judgment of the District Court, Trivandrum in an appeal which was preferred by the deceased Shamsudeen whose legal heir the petitioner claims to be. I do not want to go into the merits of the matter since Ext.P3 was not before the learned Munsiff while the impugned order was passed. Under these circumstances, I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the learned Munsiff to reconsider I.A.No.4842/04 in the light of Ext.P3 and any other material which the petitioner may produce before the learned Munsiff to substantiate his claim that he is also a legal heir of deceased Shamsudeen. The petitioner is directed W.P.C.No.34210/05 - 2 - to produce all materials establishing his claim before the learned Munsiff within one month of receiving copy of the judgment. The learned Munsiff is directed to take fresh decision on I.A.No.4842/04 at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.

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.