Cholakkal Hamza vs Ansar A on 6 June, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Cholakkal Hamza vs Ansar A on 6 June, 2019

Bench: Sunil Thomas

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941

                      OP(C).No. 1518 of 2019

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 33/2016 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN
                     BATHERY DATED 02-03-2019



PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE I.A./DEFENDANT:


             CHOLAKKAL HAMZA
             AGED 48 YEARS
             S/O.BEERANKUTTY,
             CHOLAKKAL HOUSE,
             ACHOORANAM POST,
             ACHOORANAM VILLAGE,
             VYTHIRI TALUK,
             WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 575

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
             KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH
             SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR
             SRI.C.M.ANDREWS
             SRI.SHYAM PADMAN



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN THE I.A./PLAINTIFF:

             ANSAR A.
             S/O.ABDULLA,
             ANIYARATH HOUSE,
             ARIVARAMKUNNU,
             KAMBALAKKAD POST,
             KANIYAMBETTA VILLAGE,
             VYTHIRI TALUK,
             WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 122



THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 o.p(c).1518/19
                                           2




                                    JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein, who is the defendant in a suit for refund of the money advanced in an agreement for sale, contested the proceedings. Contending that the property has been mortgaged to KFC by him as a co- surety, he sought the impleadment of the KFC in the above suit. I.A.No.224 of 2018 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed by the court below by Ext.P5 order.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso, I find nothing to interfere in the impugned order. No relief is sought against KFC and the presence of KFC is not essential for determination of issues involved in the suit. Having considered this, I feel that, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.

Original petition fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-


                                                      SUNIL THOMAS

Sbna                                                         JUDGE
 o.p(c).1518/19
                               3




                           APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.33/16 IN

THE FILE OF THE SUB JUDGE,SULTHAN BATHERY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.33/16 IN THE FILE OF THE SUB JUDGE,SULTHAN BATHERY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION ,IA 224/2018 IN O.S.NO.33/16 FOR IMPEADMENT OF KFC EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN 1A 224/2018 PASSED BY THE SUB JUDGE, SULTHAN BATHERY

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court