Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNJU MOHAMMED, OLAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE versus V.D. EDWARD, S/O. DEVASIA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KUNJU MOHAMMED, OLAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE v. V.D. EDWARD, S/O. DEVASIA - WP(C) No. 15367 of 2004(D) [2007] RD-KL 12014 (4 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15367 of 2004(D)

1. KUNJU MOHAMMED, OLAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. V.D. EDWARD, S/O. DEVASIA,
... Respondent

2. SMT.FATHIMA BEEVI, D/O. KUNJU BHAVA,

3. A.M. JALALUDHIN, ANAKULAPARAMBU,

4. SMT.MOLLY NINAN, TRAFFIC ASSISTANT

5. MOBI NINAN, C/O. SMT.MOLLY NINAN,

6. JUBY NINAN, C/O. SMT.MOLLY NINAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :04/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.15367 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 4th July, 2007



JUDGMENT

I have heard Mr.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner on the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition. Learned counsel would invite my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Udayan Chinubhai v. R.C.Bali [(1977) 4 S.C.C. 309], the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bholanath v. Madanmohan (AIR 1988 Calcutta 1) and the judgment of the High Court of Sind in Khudadad v. Moriokhan (AIR 1916 Sind 2) and submit that these judgments will show that the view taken by the learned District Judge on the question of limitation is wrong. The above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are attractive. But at this juncture Mr.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would point out that the impugned order is only an order on the delay petition and the appeal itself was rejected by the court below. The order rejecting the appeal is yet to be challenged by the writ petitioner. Mr.Bechu Kurian Thomas would now submit that an appeal was attempted to be filed but the same was returned by the Registry on the reason that the remedy lies under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Counsel sought leave W.P.C.No.15367/04 - 2 - to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the order or to pursue other proper remedies available to the petitioner. Leave is granted. It appears to me that the remedy of the petitioner under law as settled by the Supreme Court is to file a Second Appeal itself, the petitioner can represent the S.A. which is returned by the Registry to him on the reason that the same is not maintainable. The Writ Petition will stand closed. However in view of the directions given hereinabove, the order of stay presently passed will continue for two more months.

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.