Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FRANCIS versus ST. GEORGE CHURCH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


FRANCIS v. ST. GEORGE CHURCH - WP(C) No. 33625 of 2005(C) [2007] RD-KL 16070 (20 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33625 of 2005(C)

1. FRANCIS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ST. GEORGE CHURCH,
... Respondent

2. AUGUSTHY, S/O. CHERPANATH MATHEW,

3. JOSE, S/O. VENNATTUPARAMBIL SANI,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :20/08/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.33625 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 20th August, 2007



JUDGMENT

Even though respondents were served with notice, they have not entered appearance before this court for resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition.

2. Mr.K.G.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed me on the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition. The impugned orders are Exts.P1 and P2 by which the learned Munsiff have dismissed the applications respectively filed for reception of list of witnesses and list of documents. Delay seems to be the reason which weighed with the learned Munsiff for dismissing the applications. But it is brought to my notice that I.A.Nos.814/05 and 964/05 seeking amendment of the plaint had been filed even prior to the applications resulting in Exts.P1 and P2 and those applications were pending. Since two applications for amendment of the plaint were pending and the possibility that those amendment applications being allowed by the learned Munsiff could not have been ruled out, it was not proper on the part of the learned Munsiff to have dismissed the two applications filed by the petitioner for reception of list of witnesses and list of documents. I set aside Exts.P1 and P2 and allow W.P.C.No.33625/05 - 2 - I.A.Nos.1075 of 2005 and 1076 of 2005. I also direct the learned Munsiff to take up I.A.Nos.814/05 and 964/05 and dispose of those two applications early. Once those two applications are disposed of, the learned Munsiff will special list the suit for trial and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. 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.