Kerala High Court
M/S. J.T.L. Projects (P) Limited vs M/S. Teliz Realtors on 10 February, 2020
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941
OP(C).No.3019 OF 2012(O)
OS 380/2010 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 M/S. J.T.L. PROJECTS (P) LIMITED
33/2346-B GEETHANJALI ROAD VYTTILA P.O
ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682019
2 SMT. LALY JOSEPH
WIFE OF JOSEPH MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. JLT
PROJECTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED GEETHANJALI ROAD
VYTTILA P.O ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682019
3 V.J. JOSEPH
RESIDING AT CC NO 33/2346-B GEETHANJALI ROAD
VYTTILA P.O ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682019
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.EASWARAN
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM)
SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 M/S. TELIZ REALTORS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 26 M.G NAGAR PEROORKADA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER PALLITHOTTATHU EASO THOMAS PIN 695001
2 PALLITHOTTATHU EASO THOMAS @ P.E THOMAS
SON OF P.T EASO RESIDING AT 26 M.G NAGAR
PEROORKADA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .695001
3 SHEILA ELIZABETH THOMAS
WIFE OF PALLITHOTTATHU EASO THOMAS RESIDING AT
DO.DO
Case No.OPC 3019/12
-2-
4 DR.GEORGE MATHEW
SON OF LATE REV.A.C MATHEW HOUSE NO 6 GREEN
VALLEY VILLAS VAZHAKKALA B.M.C P.O ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER PALLITHOTTATHU EASO THOMAS @ P.E THOMAS
RESIDING AT DO.DO
5 DR.NIRMALA GEORGE MATHEW
WIFE OF DR.GEORGE MATHEW DO.DO
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
R1, R3-5 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Case No.OPC 3019/12
-3-
JUDGMENT
Ext.P8 order passed by the court below is under challenge in this original petition.
2. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.380 of 2010 on the files of the court below. The plaintiffs filed I.A. No.1716 of 2012 under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC to direct the defendants to produce the documents mentioned in the petition. The plaintiffs also filed I.A. No.1957 of 2011 under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for granting leave to deliver interrogatories.
3. The court below, as per Exts.P4 and P5 orders, allowed the said applications, against which review applications were filed, which were dismissed by the court below as per Ext.P8 common order.
Case No.OPC 3019/12-4-
4. Heard.
5. The contention of the petitioners is that Exts.P4 and P5 orders were passed by the court below without considering the merits of the case and hence, serious prejudice was caused to them. It appears from Exts. P4 and P5 that the said orders were passed by the court below on the reason that there was no representation for the petitioners herein. Even if the petitioners were not having representation, the court below ought to have passed a speaking order for allowing the said applications. It is true that the court below had discussed various aspects in Ext.P8 order. However, it appears from Exts.P4 and P5 that apart from stating that the petitioners herein were not having representation, no reason was stated by the court below for allowing I.A. Nos.1957 of 2011 and 1716 of Case No.OPC 3019/12 -5- 2012. This being the situation, I am of the view that Exts.P4 and P5 cannot be said to be legal and correct. That apart, the disposal of I.A. Nos.1957 of 2011 and 1716 of 2012 on merits, is also necessary to settle the dispute between the parties finally. For the said reasons, Ext.P8 common order passed by the court below dismissing the review applications filed by petitioners cannot be sustained. The court below ought to have allowed the review applications and granted an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the matter on merits.
In the result, this Original Petition stands allowed, setting aside Exts.P4, P5 and P8 orders passed by the court below and the court below is directed to dispose of I.A. Nos.1957 of 2011 and 1716 of 2012, in accordance with law, independently and untrammeled by any of the Case No.OPC 3019/12 -6- observations in Ext.P8 order, affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides.
Since the suit is of the year 2010, the court below shall dispose of I.A. Nos.1957 of 2011 and 1716 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within one month from the date fixed for the appearance of the parties before the court below.
The parties shall appear before the court below on 20.2.2020, without further notice.
sd B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.
dl/ Case No.OPC 3019/12 -7- APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3019/2012 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT DT.25.5.2010 IN O.S. NO. 380 OF 2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE PETITION IA 1957/2011 DT.28.3.2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OS 380/10.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERROGATORIES DATED 28.3.2012 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN OS 380/2010 EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.3.2012 IN IA 1957 OF 2011 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.6.2012 IN IA 1716/2012 EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION IA 3218/2012 DATED 27.6.2012 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION IA 3219 DATED 27.6.2012 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF COMON ORDER DATED 13.8.2012 IN IA 3218 AND 3219 OF 2012 IN IA 1957 OF 2012 AND IA 1716 OF 2012 IN OS 380 OF 2010 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE II, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R2(a) THE TRUE COPY OF IA 1716/2012.
EXHIBIT R2(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AGAINST EXT.P6 EXHIBIT R2(c) THE TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AGAINST EXT.P7