Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOHNSON NADAR, S/O. CHELLAPPAN NADAR versus CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JOHNSON NADAR, S/O. CHELLAPPAN NADAR v. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR - WP(C) No. 5503 of 2005(E) [2007] RD-KL 14021 (25 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5503 of 2005(E)

1. JOHNSON NADAR, S/O. CHELLAPPAN NADAR,
... Petitioner

2. MANIYAN NADAR, S/O. CHELLAPPAN NADAR,

Vs

1. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
... Respondent

2. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA, -DO- -DO-.

For Petitioner :SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT

For Respondent :SRI.L.MOHANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :25/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 5503 of 2005

Dated this the 25th day of July , 2007



JUDGMENT

Heard both sides. Even though all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners were very stoutly resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that there is justification for directing the learned Munsiff to take fresh decision on the issue seen decided under Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P20. Ext.P10 is an ex-parte order of injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mandates of clause (a) of the Proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. were not complied with by the learned Munsiff while passing Ext.P10. I do not propose to go into the merits of the above submission. But, I find that this court became inclined to grant the stay of operation of Ext.P10 and later became inclined to grant stay of all proceedings in the suit itself. Several grounds have been raised by the petitioners in this writ petition against the grant of an interim order in favour of the respondents. I permit the WPC No.5503/2005 2 petitioners to file a detailed counter affidavit in I.A. No.3124/2004. If the petitioners file a counter affidavit in I.A. 3124/2004 and produce all the documents upon which they intend to rely within one month from today, the learned Munsiff will hear both sides on I.A.3124/2004 and pass fresh orders on merits.

2. Ext.P20 order, which is also impugned, is a common order passed by the learned Munsiff on two commission applications filed by the petitioners and the plaintiffs/ respondents. Unlike Ext.P10, which is an ex parte order, and Ext.P13, which is passed on the basis that no objections have been filed, Ext.P20 can be seen to be an order passed after hearing both sides. But Sri.S.James Vincent the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Munsiff became inclined to allow the applications including the application filed by the respondents and to repell the contention of the petitioners that the suit itself is not maintainable/barred by rest judicata relying on the judgment of this curt in W.P.(C) No. 8910/2004. The learned counsel has placed before me a copy of the order dated 7.4.2006 in R.P. No. 174/2005 which would show WPC No.5503/2005 3 that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8910/2004 was later reviewed to the extent of permitting the petitioners to raise the plea of res judicata also in any suit which may be filed by the respondents. In fact Ext.P15 (I.A.No.5267/2004) has been filed by the petitioners for taking an early decision on the issue of res judicata which according to the petitioners arises in the suit. Obviously the order in R.P. No.174/2005 was not before the learned Munsiff when he passed Ext.P20. I am, therefore, of the view that it is necessary for the learned Munsiff to pass fresh orders on both the commission applications in the light of the order in R.P. No.174/2005. I set aside Ext.P20 and direct reconsideration by the learned Munsiff taking into account implications of Ext.P21 order in R.P. also. Since Ext.P15 is pending, the learned Munsiff will take an early decision on Ext.P15 i.e. within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents would strenuously submits that the commissioner has already filed his report pursuant to Ext.P20 and therefore at least to the extent the writ petition pertains to Ext.P20 it has to be found that the WPC No.5503/2005 4 writ petition is infructuous. It is for the court below to ascertain whether the Advocate Commissioner was having information regarding the absolute stay order which had been passed by this court in respect of the entire suit proceedings when he went about with the work of executing the commission work. The probative value of the Commission report already obtained is a matter for the learned Munsiff to decide when the suit ultimately goes for trial. The order of stay passed by this court in respect of Ext.P13 interim order of injunction will continue in force till such time as the learned Munsiff passes fresh orders on the injunction petition pursuant to this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

Dpk


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.