Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOJI PHILIP, S/O. THOMAS PHILIP versus ELIYAMMA PHILIP, W/O. THOMAS PHILIP

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOJI PHILIP, S/O. THOMAS PHILIP v. ELIYAMMA PHILIP, W/O. THOMAS PHILIP - WP(C) No. 33174 of 2006(Y) [2006] RD-KL 3351 (13 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33174 of 2006(Y)

1. MOJI PHILIP, S/O. THOMAS PHILIP,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ELIYAMMA PHILIP, W/O. THOMAS PHILIP,
... Respondent

2. SONY, W/O. MOJI PHILIP, AGED 30 YEARS,

3. MITHU PHILIP, S/O. MOJI PHILIP,

For Petitioner :SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :13/12/2006

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

W.P.C.NO.33174 OF 2006 (Y)

Dated this the 13 th day of December, 2006.



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is first plaintiff in O.S.1375/05 on the file of Munsiff court, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents 2 and 3 are plaintiffs and first respondent is the defendant. Suit was decreed. First respondent filed A.S.333/06, before second Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the decree and judgment. I.A.2993/06 was filed seeking an order of stay of operation of the decree passed by learned Munsiff, till the disposal of appeal. Under Ext.P5 order, learned District Judge, after hearing the counsel appearing for appellants and defendants, granted an order of stay till 6.1.07. The parties were directed to get ready in the appeal, so that the appeal could be disposed on that day. Ext.P5 order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of India.

2. Arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Munsiff after considering the evidence, granted W.P.C.NO.33174 OF 2006 (Y) 2 the decree and learned Additional District Judge should not have granted an order of stay of operation of the decree and judgment and therefore the order is to be set aside.

3. The question is whether in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court or supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of constitution of India, any interference is warranted in Ext.P5 order. The District Judge after hearing parties granted an order of stay till 6.1.07 directing the parties to get ready in the appeal. In such circumstances I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Learned District Judge shall either dispose the appeal after hearing parties on 6.1.07 or pass an order on merit after hearing the parties in I.A.2993/06. Petition disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

bkn


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.