Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.K.Sanjeev vs C.B.Youseff on 3 April, 2012

Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT:

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL  B.RADHAKRISHNAN

  THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/17TH BHADRA, 1938

                 OP(C).No. 1350 of 2012 (O)
                 ---------------------------

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.NO.2299/2012 IN OS 995/2011
    OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 03.04.2012

PETITIONER(S):
-------------

            M.K.SANJEEV
            AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.M.A.KESAVAN, SREYAS EXIM,
            37/3591, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017,
            NOW RESIDING AT C-0089/111(5)-A4, APARTMENT,
            FATHIMA BUILDING,
            OPP.GOVENMENT MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
            THRIKKAKKARA, KOCHI-682021.


           BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

            C.B.YOUSEFF
           AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BAKKAR, CHANGALAMOOLAYIL HOUSE,
            P.O.THRIKKAKARA, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
           VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682 021.

           BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

       THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD   ON  08-09-
2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C)1350/12

                            APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

EXT.P1    COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 14/11/11 IN
          IA.7108/11 IN OS.995/11 OF PRL. MUNSIFF COURT,
          ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P2    COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 16/12/11 IN WPC.33781/2011
          OF HIGH COURT.

EXT.P3    COPY OF IA.1600/12 DATED 2/3/12 IN OS.995/11 OF
          PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXT.P4    COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 6/3/2012 IN
          IA.1640/2012 IN OS.995/11 OF PRL. MUNSIFF COURT,
          ERNAKULAM.

EXT.P5    COPY OF ORDER DATED 12/3/2012 IN IA.1600/12 IN
          OS.995/11 OF PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXT.P6    COPY OF IA.2014/12 IN OS.995/11 DATED 17/3/2012 OF
                PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXT.P7    COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 22/3/2012 IN
          IA.2014/12 IN OS.995/11 OF PRL. MUNSIFF COURT,
          ERNAKULAM.

EXT.P8    COPY OF IA.2299/12 IN OS.995/11 DATED 26/3/12 OF
          PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXT.P9    COPY OF ORDER DATED 03/04/2012 IN IA.2299/12 IN
          OS.995/11 OF PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

R1(a) :   COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE
RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2007.

R1(b) :   COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSPORT OF THE WIFE OF
THE RESPONDENT SANITHA YOUSEPH DATED 08.12.2010.

R1(c) :   COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF DAUGHTER
OF RESPONDENT FATHIMA NOURIN DATED 15.11.2010.

R1(d) :   COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE
SON OF RESPONDENT AJMAL IBRAHIM DATED 15.11.2010.

                                          //TRUE COPY//


                                          PA TO JUDGE.
jg-22/9



                  THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
        -------------------------------------------
                        OP(C) No.1350 of 2012
        -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th day of September, 2016


                             J U D G M E N T

This original petition is filed challenging refusal of the trial court to grant direction for police interference. Looking at the contents of Ext.P9, particularly the reasons stated in paragraph No.15, on the basis of what has been stated relating to the facts of the case in the preceding paragraphs, I do not see any ground to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has also to be noted, most importantly, that after admitting this matter on 12.04.2012, there is no interlocutory order issued by this Court. This means that for the last more than 4 years, no requirement was noticed for issuance of any direction for police interference. Hence, preserving all contentions of the parties in the suit, this original petition is dismissed.

(THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg-8/9