Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.PONNAMMA, W/O.E.V.JOSEPH versus YOHANNAN, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 55 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.PONNAMMA, W/O.E.V.JOSEPH v. YOHANNAN, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 55 YEARS - WP(C) No. 7512 of 2005(T) [2007] RD-KL 12596 (10 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7512 of 2005(T)

1. M.PONNAMMA, W/O.E.V.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. YOHANNAN, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

For Respondent :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :10/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.7512 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 10th July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 order by which the learned Munsiff dismissed an application for stay under Section 10 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the earlier instituted suit O.S.No.265/03 is under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the persuasive and fervent submissions of Mr.V.Rajendran Perumbavoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel who argues that Ext.P5 is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference under the supervisory jurisdiction. At the same time I feel that considerations of justice and the consideration that possibility of conflicting findings in respect of litigations pertaining to substantially the same property should be avoided as far as possible and that the valuable time of the court should be saved, I am of the view that there is justification for ordering a joint trial of both the suits. Accordingly, even as I approve Ext.P5 order, I direct the learned Munsiff to try and dispose of O.S.No.265/03 and O.S.No.296/03 jointly treating O.S.No.265/03, the earlier instituted suit as the leading suit. Since both the suits are of the year 2003, the learned W.P.C.No.7512/05 - 2 - Munsiff will make every endeavour to dispose of the suits within three months of them becoming ripe for trial. Mr.Rajendran has a further grievance that the learned Munsiff has not been inclined to direct maintenance of status quo as reported by the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed in O.S.No.265/03 which is the suit earlier in point of time. If any application is filed by either of the parties regarding the above aspect, the learned Munsiff shall consider the application and take a decision after hearing both sides and issue appropriate interim directions. The Writ Petition is disposed of 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.