Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDULLA, S/O. SOOPY HAJI versus IBRAYI, S/O. SOOPY HAJI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABDULLA, S/O. SOOPY HAJI v. IBRAYI, S/O. SOOPY HAJI - WP(C) No. 18448 of 2004(U) [2007] RD-KL 8817 (29 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18448 of 2004(U)

1. ABDULLA, S/O. SOOPY HAJI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. IBRAYI, S/O. SOOPY HAJI,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI

For Respondent :SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :29/05/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C) No.18448 OF 2004 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 29TH MAY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The grievance of the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit is that even as the application Ext.P1 filed by him for remitting the commissioner's report to the commissioner so that the commissioner will report on the various aspects mentioned in the work memo submitted before him by the petitioner was pending, the learned Munsiff has listed the suit for trial.

2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit. It is not disputed that the learned Munsiff had before him Ext.P1 application when the suit was listed for trial. The contention is only that Ext.P1 is a method for protracting the proceedings in the suit.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The petitioner has a specific averment that he submitted work memo before the commissioner as permitted by the court. That averment is not seen disputed in the detailed counter affidavit. In fact, in paragraph 8, the respondent has inter alia stated that he has no objection in remitting the commissioner's report or even appointing a fresh commissioner at the cost of the petitioner. Apart from the WP(C)N0.18448 OF 2004 consent of the respondent, I feel that the learned Munsiff should have passed some orders on Ext.P1 application before proceeding to list the suit for trial. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the learned Munsiff to hear the parties and pass orders on Ext.P1 before trial of the suit is taken up. Orders as directed above will be passed at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving copy of this judgment. No costs.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.18448 OF 2004


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.