Kerala High Court
Faizal Eroth vs Venkalath Raveendran
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2746 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------
IA.NO.3606/2014 IN OS.NO.66/2007 OF SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
--------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
FAIZAL EROTH, MOOSA HAJI,
AGED 46 YEARS, 'EROTH', NADAPURAM,
BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE-673504.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.SAJU.S.A
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH
SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. VENKALATH RAVEENDRAN, AGED 81 YEARS,
S/O.DR.PARAN, VENKALATH HOUSE,
KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK.
2. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 69 YEARS, SO.DR.PARAN,
VENKALATH HOUSE,
KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
OP(C).No. 2746 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
RFA.819/2008
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA.3140/16 IN IA.3606/14
IN OS.66/2007 SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 19/8/16
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
THE ABOVE MATTER DATED 22/9/16.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
===================
O.P.(C). No.2746 of 2016
=======================
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
This is an application filed by the petitioner to issue direction to the court below to issue carbon copy of the impugned order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.66 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Kozhikode, which was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The court below after trial declined to grant specific performance and only directed to return of advance amount, that was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing RFA No.819 of 2008 before this Court and this Court by Ext.P1 judgment allowed the appeal with certain directions. The respondents filed an application before the court below under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract as they failed to pay the balance consideration. The petitioner also filed an application for issue a commission and that was allowed and the commissioner submitted a report to file the application to remit the commissioner's report O.P.(C)No.2746 of 2016 -2- also and that was dismissed and respondents herein filed I.A.No.1814 of 2015 and I.A.No.1815 of 2015 directing the petitioners to produce certain documents and also answer certain interrogations. Those petitions were dismissed by the trial court challenged by the respondent before this Court and this court directed the court below to consider the same and they also filed I.A.No.3140 of 2016 as Ext.P2 to production of certain documents and the petitioner opposed the same and filed Ext.P3 objection, but the court below had allowed those applications. The applications were allowed by passing an order dated 24.10.2016 and it is posed to 05.11.2016 for production of documents. Though they filed an application for issue of a copy of order along with emergent copy application that has not been issued so far. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Pass an order directing the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode to grant a copy of the order passed by the above court in I.A.3140/2016 in I.A.No.3606/2014 in O.S.66/2007 on its file, dated 24.10.2016 within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble court.
b) Pass an order staying all further proceedings in I.A.3606/2014 in O.S.No.66/2007 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode, pending disposal of the above Original Petition (Civil)."
O.P.(C)No.2746 of 2016 -3-
3. Heard Shri T.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. P.B.Krishnan who entered appearance for respondents.
4. Though at the time when the application was taken up, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is even prepared to deposit the amount on the basis of the commissioner's report, that was objected by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that time is lapsed and that is a matter to be considered by the court below in the application filed to rescind the contract and it is beyond the scope of the prayer in this petition. So, there is some force in the submission by the learned counsel for the respondent as the prayer in the petition is only to direct the court below to issue certified copy of the order passed. So considering the circumstances, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:-
The 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode is directed to furnish the copy of the impugned order in I.A.No.3140 of 2016 in I.A.No.3606 of 2014 in O.S.No.66 of 2007 pending before that court, which has been filed with an emergent application as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within one week from today and report compliance of the same, the proceedings in I.A.No.3606 of 2014 in O.S.No.66 of 2007 is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of ten days.
With the above direction and observation the petition is O.P.(C)No.2746 of 2016 -4- disposed of.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court by phone followed by FAX immediately.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SKV