Kerala High Court
Anu Krishnan vs Pushpa on 12 March, 2014
Author: K. Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
OP(C).No. 2029 of 2015 (O)
-----------------------------------------
I.A.NO.4579/2014 AND I.A.NO.243/2015 IN O.S.NO.145/2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL
MUNSIFF'S COURT-1, KOZHIKODE
----------------
PETITIONER(S) :
-------------------------
ANU KRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.RAGHAVAN, KOORAPPURATH HOUSE, IYYAD,
VEERYAMBARAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. PUSHPA,
D/O.APPUKUTTY, KARTHIKA HOUSE,
NEAR THIYYAKKOTH KSHETHRAM, NANMINDA POST,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 613.
2. SUBRAMANIAN,
S/O.PARANGU, KARTHIKA HOUSE,
NEAR THIYYAKKOTH KSHETHRAM, NANMINDA POST,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 613.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-11-2015,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
OP(C).No. 2029 of 2015 (O)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
----------------------------------------
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, I, KOZHIKODE DATED 12.03.2014.
P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1
AND 2 IN EXHIBIT P1 SUIT DATED 17.07.2014.
P3: TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.4579 OF 2014 IN O.S NO.145/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF -1, KOZHIKODE DATED 12.12.2014.
P4: TRUE COPY OF INTERROGATORIES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 12.01.2014.
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2015 IN EXHIBIT P3.
P6: TRE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2015 IN I.A NO.4579/2014 IN
O.S NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF -1,
KOZHIKODE.
P7: TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.243/2015 IN O.S NO.145/2014 DATED 15.01.2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF -1, KOZHIKODE.
P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 19.01.2015 FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P7 APPLICATION.
P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2015 IN I.A NO.243/2015 IN
O.S NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF-1,
KOZHIKODE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(C)No. 2029 of 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the plaintiff in OS.145 of 2014 of Munsiff, Kozhikode. He filed an application to permit him to deliver interrogatories to the respondents/defendants. By the impugned order the learned Munsiff has dismissed it. The reason is that there was inordinate delay in filing the application.
2. Heard.
3. The respondents filed written statement on 17.7.2014. The application for permission to deliver the interrogatories was filed on 12.12.2014. The suit had already been included in the list of cases for trial and posted to 17.1.2015 for trial. It is clear that the application was filed after the suit was posted for trial. The purpose of delivering interrogatories is to save time and money. Allowing the application to deliver interrogatories just before the trial of the suit is counter productive. It will only delay the disposal of the suit.
O.P.(C)No. 2029 of 2015 2
4. In this case, the petitioner wanted information as to the alienee of the property which is a subject matter of the suit. Even before the institution of the suit the petitioner was aware that the property was transferred. This fact was stated in the reply notice sent to him by the respondents. Still he did not think it proper to implead the alienee as a party to the suit.
5. If a vendor alienates property after he has entered into an agreement for sale the vendee is entitled to a statutory charge under Section 55(6) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act. His right cannot be defeated. The non impleadment of the transferee will not defeat the right of the petitioner. Sometimes it might cause some inconvenience to him. But that is no reason to delay the disposal of the suit which will cause inconvenience to the respondents.
In the result this OP is dismissed.
sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge