Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.THAHA versus SAMASTA KERALA JAMA IYYATHUL ULAMA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.THAHA v. SAMASTA KERALA JAMA IYYATHUL ULAMA - CRP No. 1740 of 1999(D) [2007] RD-KL 14843 (3 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1740 of 1999(D)

1. A.THAHA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SAMASTA KERALA JAMA IYYATHUL ULAMA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN

For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :03/08/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P.No.1740 of 1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 3rd August, 2007

ORDER

This C.R.P. is directed against an order allowing an application filed by the defendants for reopening the evidence. The application for reopening was resisted by the respondents mainly on the reason that the relief sought for is barred by the order of this court in C.R.P.No.1505 of 1998. But as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as rightly found by the learned Subordinate Judge in his order the order in the earlier C.R.P. will not operate as res judicata in that the earlier C.R.P. was directed against an order dismissing an adjournment application and the reopening petition itself is filed only after earlier C.R.P. was disposed of. But then, I find force in the submission of Mr.Harikumar that there has been considerable lethargy on the side of the petitioner in the matter of adducing evidence. Even the reopening petition was filed two/three months after earlier C.R.P. was disposed of. Though I do not find any jurisdictional infirmity about the impugned order so as to warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 C.P.C., I feel that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in allowing the application without imposing any conditions. C.R.P.No.1740/99 - 2 - Accordingly, in modification of the impugned order, I dispose of the C.R.P. issuing the following directions:

1. The impugned order is made conditional upon the respondents paying a sum of Rs.1000/- by way of cost to the petitioner either directly or through his counsel in this court within three weeks from today.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge will give top priority to the trial of the suit and will special list the same in the next available special list and try the suit on a day to day basis. At any rate, the suit will be finally disposed of within four weeks of the commencement of the examination of the principal witness on the side of the respondent.

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.