Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J.
Sunil.A.K.- Petitioner
Versus
Bharath Lajhna Multi State Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd. – Respondent
OP(C) No. 1123 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dinesh R.Shenoy, Helan Paulose, Shanthipriya D. Shenoy, Mohamed Shali Namshad
For the Respondent: Shaji Chirayath, Jiji M. Varkey, M.K.Safeela Beevi, Savitha Ganapathiyatan, M.M.Shajahan
The court upheld the petitioner's right to appeal against a Munsiff Court order, granting an interim stay until the appeal is filed.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Original Petition filed to keep proceedings in abeyance - Petitioner claims non-receipt of certified copy of order - Court interdicts further proceedings pending appeal - Interim order granted until 05.05.2025 to enable appeal against Munsiff Court's order. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Right to appeal - Petitioner retains right to question Munsiff Court's order despite procedural issues - Interest of justice demands non-implementation of the order until appeal is filed. (Paras 6-7)
(C) Conduct of parties - Court acknowledges concerns regarding petitioner's conduct but emphasizes the right to appeal should not be defeated. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking to stay proceedings based on an order from the Munsiff Court, claiming non-receipt of a certified copy. The court intervened to prevent implementation of the order until the petitioner could appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner has the right to appeal against the Munsiff Court's order and limited the interim order until 05.05.2025.
Issues: The main issues included the petitioner's right to appeal and the validity of the interim order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner retains the right to appeal against the Munsiff Court's order, and the interim order should remain in effect to protect that right.
Result: Original Petition disposed of with interim order limited to 05.05.2025.
JUDGMENT :
Easwaran S., J.
This Original Petition is filed seeking indulgence of this Court to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to the order dated 11.04.2025 in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S. No.330 of 2025 on the file of the Ist Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that after the passing of the order in I.A.No.10 of 2025, an application for certified copy was filed and the petitioner is yet to receive the copy of the same, and in the meantime, steps were taken to implement the directions in I.A.No.10 of 2025.
3. This Court, while considering the Original Petition on 22.04.2025, after hearing the counsel on both sides, interdicted further proceedings to be taken in respect of the directions contained in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S.No. 330 of 2025 and directed the learned Munsiff Court to forward a report stating whether a certified copy of the impugned order applied by the petitioner was issued to him or not. In pursuance to the said direction, the office of the Munsiff Court has informed the Registry of this Court that the certified copy of the order in I.A.No.10 of 2025 has already been issued to the petitioner on 21.04.2025.
4. Be that as it may, the Original Petition is now listed today at the instance of the respondent, who has now sought to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 22.04.2025 on the pretext that the statement made across the Bar by the petitioner on the said date is incorrect and false. According to the respondent, the very number of the copy application submitted by the petitioner is incorrect inasmuch as the copy of the order in I.A.No.10 of 2025 has already been obtained by him and suppressing the said fact that the present Original Petition has been filed.
5. This Court could have appreciated the aforesaid argument, had the petitioner obtained an ad interim ex parte order on 22.04.2025. However, the fact remains that the order was passed by this Court after considering the rival submissions raised across the Bar by both counsel. It is true as contended by the respondent that the copy of the order has already been issued by the office of the Munsiff Court on 21.04.2025 as per the report submitted by the court before this Court today.
6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has every right to question the order passed by the Munsiff Court in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in an appropriately instituted appeal. The interest of justice demands that the order passed by the Munsiff Court not be implemented until such time as the petitioner is able to work out his remedy so that the subject matter of the lis is not disturbed. Having said so, this Court is of the view that inordinate time cannot be granted for enabling the petitioner to work out his remedy against the order passed by the Munsiff Court. Though this Court is not satisfied with regard to the conduct of the petitioner as regards that an averment made across the Bar, the fact remains that the petitioner's right to prefer an appeal against the order dated 11.04.2025 cannot be defeated. In such circumstances, this Court is not in a position to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent that the interim order granted by this Court after hearing parties should be vacated.
7. Though this Court has found that the request for vacating the interim order cannot be entertained, it is of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the Original Petition pending by continuing the interim order. Therefore, the situation demands that the Original Petition be disposed of by limiting the interim order for a period upto 05.05.2025 in order to enable the petitioner to file appropriate appeal against the order dated 11.04.2025 in I.A.No.10 of 2025. It is made clear that under no circumstances, the interim order so granted by this Court till 05.05.2025 will be extended beyond that period and it is upto the petitioner to work out his remedy by preferring an a
