Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P. SREEDHARAN, S/O.SANKARAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P. SREEDHARAN, S/O.SANKARAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 5298 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 3462 (15 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5298 of 2007(E)

1. P. SREEDHARAN, S/O.SANKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. AYILLIATH YEDUNATH NAMBIAR,

3. A. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKARAN,

4. KINATHI DINESHAN, S/O.GOPALAN,

5. PUTHIYAPURAYIL ASHRAF, S/O.MOIDEEN,

6. P. RAJAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE,

7. THAPPALLA SHAJI, S/O.PADMANABHAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :15/02/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

W.P(C).No.5298 of 2007

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The short grievance of the petitioner is that the directions of the Sessions Judge in Ext.P7 order that C.C.No.366 of 2006 (earlier numbered as C.C.159 of 2005), C.C.638 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.No.500 of 2005 be heard together, is not being complied with by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - II, Kannur. While C.C.638 of 2005 is posted to 19.02.2007 and Crl.M.P.No.500 of 2005 is posted to 17.02.2007, C.C.No.366 of 2006 is posted to 02.05.2007. As the disputes involved in these 3 cases are integrally connected, the same have to be disposed of by the same court together. The purpose of that direction will be defeated, if cases are not taken together and in quick succession for consideration. This is the short grievance raised by the petitioner.

2. I find merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner. In the light of Ext.P7 direction, every endeavour must be made by the learned Magistrate to dispose of all the 3 cases simultaneously in quick succession on the same day one after the other. Of course, it need not be insisted that all the 3 cases must be posted to the same day as it may be difficult to take up all the 3 cases for trial simultaneously. But I find merit in the objection raised by the learned W.P(C).No.5298 of 2007 2 counsel for the petitioner that the posting of the third case ie. C.C.366 of 2006 to 02.05.2007 is not, at any rate, justified.

3. I am satisfied that no specific directions need be issued. But I do observe that the direction in Ext.P7 must be complied with by the learned Magistrate scrupulously and to facilitate that the petitioner can certainly file an application to advance the posting of C.C.366 of 2006, on which application, the learned Magistrate must pass appropriate orders to ensure compliance with Ext.P7.

4. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- W.P(C).No.5298 of 2007 3


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.