← Library
High Court of KeralaOP(C)/3056/2015disposed of

Rosamma Kuruvila v. C.K Jose

2015-12-14Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1937 OP(C).No. 3056 of 2015 (O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.184/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY ------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- ROSAMMA KURUVILA, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.C.ALEXANDER, AZHAKATH VEETTIL, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY.

BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. C.K JOSE, S/O.KURUVILA, MATHILAKATH CHETTAYIL, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY 687 610.

2. DALIYA JOSE W/O.C.K.JOSE, MATHILAKATH CHETTAYIL, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY 687 610.

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

OP(C).No. 3056 of 2015 (O) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1.

COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHANGANASSERY MUNSIFF COURT DATED 6.8.14 IN IA 841/14 IN OS 184/14.

EXHIBIT P2.

COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.12.15 IN IA 1578/14 IN OS 184/14 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C)No.3056 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.184 of 2014 of Munsiff Court, Changanassery. The suit is for fixation of boundary and other reliefs. It was alleged that the respondents cut down an anjily tree standing in the disputed portion. By Ext.P1 order the learned Munsiff directed release of the timber to any of the parties who furnishes Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Both parties furnished security. It is submitted that even without any order the respondents took away the timber. The prayer in this OP is to direct the respondents to return the timber.

2.

Heard.

3.

I have no doubt that the learned Munsiff should not have passed an order like Ext.P1. She should have either ordered sale of the timber by auction between the parties or by public auction and to deposit the sale proceeds in the court. The respondents should not have taken away the timber without the orders of the court. It

O.P.(C)No.3056 of 2015 is for the trial court to take appropriate action in this matter. But I cannot direct the respondents to return the timber as it is not known in whose custody it is at present. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the suit is ripe for trial. So the learned Munsiff shall try to dispose of the suit itself within six months.

In the result, this OP is disposed of with a direction to the learned Munsiff to take appropriate action in the matter and to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgement provided it is ripe for trial.

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge