Thayyil Puthan Veettil Ajith v. Kanaka Saseendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/28TH JYAISHTA, 1937 OP(C).No. 2664 of 2014 (O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.406/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR ------------------ PETITIONER:
------------------ THAYYIL PUTHAN VEETTIL AJITH, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, ENGINEER, 'SREENITHI', PANAMKAVU, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670002.
BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. KANAKA SASEENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE SASEEDRAN, HOUSE NO.22, P.P.C.NAGAR SOUTH POOTHAPPARA, KANNUR-670001.
2. PRASEETHA SURENDRAN, W/O LATE SURENDRAN, GOVINDA SADAN, NEAR THALAP TEMPLE KANNUR-670002.
3. K.UPENDRAN,, AGED 78 YEARS S/O.MAROLI PANCHALI, BUSINESS, THALAP WARD KANNUR II AMSOM, KANNUR-670002.
R2 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.T.THASMI R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.K.BABU SRI.T.V.VINU THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
OP(C).No. 2664 of 2014 (O) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.406/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT,THRISSUR EXT.P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND DEFENDANT EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.3646 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN I.A.4045 OF 2013 IN O.S.406/2007 DATED 27.09.2013 EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN IA.4045/13 EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.4045/2013 IN O.S.406/2007 DATED 18.03.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ O.P.(C) No. 2664 of 2014 ............................................................... Dated this the 18th day of June, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2.
As against the Commissioner's plan and report Ext.P5 objection was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit and Ext.P6 objection was filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit. It seems that the court below has taken a casual approach in dealing with the matter and Ext.P7 order has been passed by remitting the report to the Commissioner and Surveyor. Even though specific objections have been raised by the parties through Exts.P5 and P6, the court below has not addressed any of those matters. Instead, the court below
O.P.(C) 2664 of 2014 -: 2 :- has merely relegated those matters to the Commissioner to decide. The approach made by the court below in Ext.P7 cannot be appreciated. Ext.P7 is not a speaking order, and it is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Original Petition is allowed and Ext.P7 order stands set aside. The court below shall address the objections raised by the parties in Exts.P5 and P6, and pass appropriate orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/- [True copy] P.S. to Judge