Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LAKSHMI AMMA, VASHATT HOUSE versus MAMBOYIL VAZHATT NARAYANAN KURUP

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LAKSHMI AMMA, VASHATT HOUSE v. MAMBOYIL VAZHATT NARAYANAN KURUP - WP(C) No. 32117 of 2004(W) [2007] RD-KL 9877 (8 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32117 of 2004(W)

1. LAKSHMI AMMA, VASHATT HOUSE,
... Petitioner

2. DAUGHTER VAZHATT PADMAVATHI AMMA,

3. YOUNGER SISTER, VAZHATT SAROJINI AMMA,

4. BROTHER VAZHATT VEETTIL BALAKRISHNAN

5. YOUNGER BROTHER VAZHATT VEETTIL

6. BROTHER VAZHATT VEETTIL HARIDASAN,

Vs

1. MAMBOYIL VAZHATT NARAYANAN KURUP,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY

For Respondent :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :08/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.32117 OF 2004 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 8TH JUNE, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Defendants 34 to 39 in a suit in which a preliminary decree was passed are the petitioners. They impugn Ext.P2 order issued by the learned Sub Judge directing the advocate commissioner already appointed, to file his report by 18.9.2004. The grievance which is very seriously urged before me by Sri.K.Lakshminarayanan, counsel for the petitioners is that it is in violation of the directions in Ext.P1 order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1373 of 2001 that the learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P2 order. Though there was a specific direction that the objections which had been filed by the petitioners to the final decree application should be considered before appointing advocate commissioner, the learned Sub Judge has passed the impugned order without considering the objections at all.

2. I have heard Sri.R.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent also.

3. There is nothing to indicate in Ext.P2 that the learned Sub Judge considered the objections filed by the petitioners to the final decree application, though there was a specific direction in that regard in Ext.P1 order of this Court. Under these circumstances, Ext.P2 WP(C)N0.32117/04 order is set aside and the learned Sub Judge is directed to pass a fresh order on the final decree application, taking into account the direction in this judgment and the direction in Ext.P1 order. Fresh orders will be passed as directed above at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the order in I.A.No.315 of 2002 allowing impleadment is not interfered with. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.32117/04


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.