Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI, J
Jagadamma K, W/O Krishna Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Lissy, W/O Late G.D.Varghese – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This original petition is filed seeking the disposal of A.S.No.11 of 2022, on the files of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in the original suit.
2. Petitioners filed O.S.No.374 of 2011 for fixation of boundary of plaint A schedule property declaring the title of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the D schedule property and for recovery of the plaint D schedule and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was decreed on 23.9.2021. Thereafter, the defendants 10, 11 and 12 filed A.S.No.11 of 2022, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.374 of 2011.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was posted for hearing from 06.03.2023, and the same was heard, but the judgment is not pronounced.
4. A report was called for and a report dated 7.3.2025 is received, wherein it is stated that the counsel who was appearing originally was changed and the new counsel has filed fresh vakalath. Thereafter, on 26.3.2024, the appeal was heard and posted for further hearing to 5.4.2024. The petitioner therefore, sought time to produce two documents and filed I.A. No.3 of 2024 on 27.6.2024. Thereafter, the counsel was again changed and anoth
The court emphasized the necessity for timely resolution of appeals, directing the appellate court to conclude proceedings within three months.
The court affirmed that prohibitory injunctions can be enforced despite ongoing disputes, ensuring that decree holders can secure their rights.
The court determined that a plea of recovery of possession is not valid when plaintiffs admit lack of interest, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for property identity and proper amendment ....
The court mandates timely disposal of appeals to maintain efficiency in judicial proceedings.
The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of issues already decided, and the appellate court retains the power to consider new evidence, but no new facts justified the amendments sought.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering merits in delay applications, especially where no vested rights exist for the opposing party.
Amendments to pleadings must not alter the fundamental nature of the case or prejudice the opposing party; such amendments can be disallowed if they distort the original claims.
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
A court cannot entertain a second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless a substantial question of law is raised, reaffirming that lower courts’ evidence assessments cannot be re-evaluated absent new co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
