Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRABHA SREEVALSAN, AGED 55 YEARS versus U.K.JAYARAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRABHA SREEVALSAN, AGED 55 YEARS v. U.K.JAYARAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS - WP(C) No. 30924 of 2003(F) [2007] RD-KL 12739 (11 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30924 of 2003(F)

1. PRABHA SREEVALSAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. PRAKASH NARAYANAN S/O.NARAYANAN,

3. RAMESH NARAYANAN, AGED 45 YEARS

Vs

1. U.K.JAYARAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Respondent

2. U.K.NALINI, AGED 77 YEARS W/O. APPU,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

For Respondent :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :11/07/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No.30924 OF 2003 F

Dated this the 11th July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Exts.P4 and P7 orders. Ext.P2 is an application filed by the defendants to remit the commissioner's plan and report. The court found that particulars are available and so no remission is necessary and therefore dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners points out before me that even no counter was filed in the remitting application and that the court has not considered the specific ground that has been averred in the petition in support of a remission. I find from page 8 of the petition that there are points to be noted precisely and categorically stated by the petitioner and the court, instead of considering each of these points had just generalised about the previous conduct of the petitioner and dismissed the application. It is not proper. If the court finds that what has to be looked into is not necessary or is already there, it should have given a definite finding on these points and thereafter dismiss the application. This is a case where even an objection is not filed. Therefore the order suffers from infirmity and it is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court WPC 30924/03 2 below for fresh consideration of I.A. 2874/2003 after permitting the respondents therein to file their objections and then dispose of the matter after hearing both sides. In case the party needs evidence to be adduced, that also may be permitted. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 8.8.2007. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.