Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.MEENA PALACE (LTD) versus KUNNOTH FIRDOUSE, AGED 25/OO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.MEENA PALACE (LTD) v. KUNNOTH FIRDOUSE, AGED 25/OO - Tr P(C) No. 203 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 9037 (30 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr P(C) No. 203 of 2006()

1. M/S.MEENA PALACE (LTD),
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KUNNOTH FIRDOUSE, AGED 25/OO,
... Respondent

2. RAMATH THAZHA KUNIYIL NABEEZA,

3. P.M.ABDUL NAZIR, AGED 35/00,

4. PARAMBATH MEENAKSHI, AGED 62/00,

5. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

6. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REP. BY

For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

For Respondent :SRI.B.G.BHASKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :30/05/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

Tr.P.C.No: 203 OF 2006

Dated this the 30th May, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This petition is filed to direct transfer of O.S.185/02 and O.S.191/02 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode to the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode for the purpose of joint trial with indigent suit O.P.3/2002.

2. Perused the order of the learned District Judge and heard counsel for both sides.

3. A perusal of the order would reveal that indigent O.P.3/02 has not been even decided so as to whether the petitioner is to be permitted to sue as an indigent person. It is also contended that earlier two original petitions, 237/03 and 272/04 were disposed of. The reason shown in dismissing the earlier application was that the issue to be considered in the indigent O.P was only whether the petitioner be permitted to sue as a indigent person. Until and unless it is disposed of or allowed and converted as a suit and notice is issued, one cannot hold that O.P.3/02 has to be tried along with other suit that is sought to be requested for. Another point is that on the very same ground the earlier original petitions had been dismissed and the court was not at all in a position to entertain the present transfer application. Therefore the transfer Tr.P.C.203/06 2 petition is dismissed. But however, I make it clear that if O.P.3/02 is disposed of and the other matters are pending at that point of time the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application for proper consideration by the court. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.