Jaganatha Prasad @ Reghu v. Rajendra Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/5TH ASHADHA, 1937 OP(C).No. 1509 of 2015 (O) --------------------------- ( OS.NO. 664/2008 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM) ------------ PETITIONER/DEFENDANT :
---------------------------------------- JAGANATHA PRASAD @ REGHU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O LATE C.SAHADEVAN, RESIDING AT C.S.SADANAM, T.B.ROAD, KODIMATHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS :
---------------------------------------------
1. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.SAHADEVAN,4-C, CENTURY TOWERS, NEAR Y.W.C.A., KOTTAYAM-1, NOW RESIDING AT 19 JEEVAN SARTH HOUSING SOCIETY, OLD PIPELINE ROAD, VAKOLA, SANTACRUZ, MUMBAI-55
2. MADHUBALA GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.CO.R.P.GOPALAN (RETD), SRIKRISHNANIKETHAN, NMC NO.IX/501, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA,PIN-695 121
3. SURABALA MURALI, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.V.M.MURALI, RESIDING AT VELLAPPALLY BUNGLOW, PERINNIRMANGALAM KARA, MARARIKULAM (N) VILLAGE, KANICHUKULANGARA.P.O., CHERTHALA-688 582 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP(C).NO.1509/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.664/2008 DATED 31/10/2008 FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOTTAYAM.
P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT P3 COPY OF THE I.A.NO.658/2015 IN O.S.NO.664/2003 DATED 21/05/2015 P4 COPY OF THE I.A.800/2015 IN O.S.NO.664/2003 DATED 15/06/2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
==================== O.P.(C).No.1509 of 2015 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The complaint of the petitioner is that even though he has taken up a contention that the suit is grossly undervalued, the court below has not cared to decide the said matter as a preliminary issue at first. Exhibit P2 is the written statement filed by the defendant, who is the petitioner herein. It seems that by way of passing remark in paragraph 8, it is contented that "The suit is not properly valued." Apart from that, any concrete ground specifically pointing out as to the way in which the suit is undervalued, has not been pleaded. That may be the reason why the court below has not considered the said aspect as a preliminary issue. Whatever it is, it seems that the suit is presently in the list. The court below shall consider the question regarding the valuation of the suit during trial.
O.P.(C).1509/15 With the said observations, this Original Petition (Civil) is closed.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE DSV/26/6/15