Kerala High Court
Thurayil T.Gupthan vs Kzd.Dist.Matsyafed on 14 September, 2007
Author: K.Padmanabhan Nair
Bench: K.Padmanabhan Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS No. 444 of 1996(\)
1. THURAYIL T.GUPTHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KZD.DIST.MATSYAFED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :14/09/2007
O R D E R
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.
-------------------------------------------------
A.S.No.444 of 1996
-------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 14th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.301/1993 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode is the appellant. Appellant is challenging a decree of mandatory injunction passed as early as on 31.7.1995 after a lapse of about 12 years in this appeal.
2. Appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for manufacturing and supplying a boat for an amount of Rs.65,000/-. Subsequently damages were caused to the boat. Respondent filed a suit for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the appellant to effect the necessary repairs of the boat. It was contended that one of the terms of the agreement was that in case any damages caused to the boat within a period of six months from the date of supply the appellant will effect necessary repairs. Boat supplied by the appellant sustained damages. He refused to effect repairs. Hence the respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction. Appellant took up a stand that there was no such agreement and damages were caused on account of the improper use of the boat.
3. Court below after analysing the evidence found that damages were caused to the boat on account of the inferior quality of the timber used for the manufacture of the same. Court below relied on Ext.A6 in which the appellant AS No.444/1996 -: 2 :- himself had admitted that fact. Ext.A1 contains recital to the effect that in case any damages were caused to the boat within a period of six months from the date of supply the appellant will repair the same. Court below relying on the evidence adduced in this case found that the appellant was liable to effect repairs of the boat since the boat sustained damages within six months from the date of supply. The direction was issued as early as on 31.7.1995. I do not find any reason to admit this appeal at this distant point of time. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is only to be dismissed.
In the result, appeal is dismissed.
C.M.P.No.2825/1996 will stand dismissed.
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.
cks AS No.444/1996 -: 3 :- K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
A.S.No.444 of 1996 JUDGMENT 14th September, 2007.