O.Vinodini vs Mamiyil Udayesan on 7 December, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

O.Vinodini vs Mamiyil Udayesan on 7 December, 2009

Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4202 of 2005(A)


1. O.VINODINI, AGED 51 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MAMIYIL UDAYESAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KANAVILAYIL SURESH BABU, AGED 39 YEARS,

3. POOLAKKAL VELAYUDHAN, AGED 68 YEARS,

4. MANAL CHANDRAN, AGED 69 YEARS,

5. POOLAKKAL PRAKASAN, AGED 44 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.KHALID

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :07/12/2009

 O R D E R
                  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                 ----------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.4202 OF 2005
                     --------------------------------
         Dated this the 7th day of December 2009
         ----------------------------------------------------------

                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.

i) To call for the records relating to I.A No.5137/2004 in O.S No.950/2001 from the Munsiff Court No.2, Kozhikode and to quash the Ext.P4 order vitiated by gross illegality and impropriety. Direct the Munsiff Court to serve the interrogatories on 1st respondent and call for his answers or affidavit according to law.

ii) To stay the trial of O.S No.950/2001 till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

iii) To pass such other order as may be deemed just and proper.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.950 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court II, Kozhikode. Suit is one for partition, and the respondents are the defendants. W.P.(C).No.4202 OF 2005 Page numbers Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for serving interrogatories on the first defendant. That application after hearing both sides was dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though some of the respondents remain to be served, having regard to the impugned order and the facts and circumstances presented, service of notice on those respondents are dispensed with. Petitioner's case for serving interrogatories on the first defendant is that after filing the suit, just before filing of the present petition, it had come to his notice from an agreement that some other properties remain to be included in the present suit for partition. That was the reason set forth to serve interrogatories on the defendant to get details of the properties. The court below taking note that the suit had W.P.(C).No.4202 OF 2005 Page numbers come up in the special list for trial on two previous occasions, on 14/02/2003 and 22/09/2004 and on those occasions, plaintiff had filed amendment applications and the trial did not proceed further. The present application for serving interrogatories with the reason stated appeared to the learned Munsiff as intended to delay the trial of the suit further. In that view of the matter, the court below dismissed the application moved by the plaintiff. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and taking note of Ext.P4 order with reference to other exhibits produced in the writ petition, I find no impropriety or illegality in the views taken by the learned Munsiff. No interference with Ext.P4 order is called for. Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court