Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41985
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
GEORGE K GEORGE
– Appellant
Versus
SHEBIN ABDUL – Respondent
OP(C) 2269 2022
LUKE J CHIRAYIL, M.G.SREEJITH
The court emphasized the importance of timely issuance of court orders and the prevention of conflicting reports through coherent legal processes.
Headnote:
Supervisory - Certifying Orders - Article 227 - Highlights the need for timely issuance of orders and maintaining the integrity of procedural actions in the legal system.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought certified copies of orders from the lower court related to a suit for money recovery, facing delays despite following procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the circumstances of the denied requests for copies and recognized the potential conflicts from the contradictory applications filed, leading to the necessity of issuing the orders promptly.
Issues: Whether the lower court should issue certified copies of its orders, and the implications of pending litigation on subsequent procedural actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 enables the higher court to ensure lower courts fulfill their procedural obligations effectively and without unnecessary delays.
Final Decision: The court directed the lower court to issue certified copies of the orders within one week and stayed further proceedings for two weeks.
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed, inter-alia, to direct the Court of the Musniff, Kollam to issue the carbon copy/certified copy of the orders passed in I.A.Nos.2/2022, 4/2022 and 6/2022 in O.S.No.683/2022 within a time frame.
2. The concise case of the petitioners is that, they are the plaintiffs in the above suit, which is filed against the respondents for recovery of money. They had filed I.A.No.2/2022 (Ext.P3) for appointing an expert to conduct a site inspection of the building. Ext.P3 application was resisted by the respondents through Ext.P4 counter statement. Thereafter, the respondents filed I.A.No.4/2022 (Ext.P5) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to be assisted by an expert Chartered Engineer to conduct an inspection. Then, the respondents filed I.A.No.6/2022 (Ext.P6) to direct the Advocate Commissioner to execute the order at the earliest.
3. The petitioners contend that the court below has allowed Exts.P3 and P5 applications, which are self – contradictory. If the same Advocate Commissioner is assisted by two Experts, there is a possibility of conflicting reports being filed. The petitioners propose to challenge Exts P3, P5 and 6 orders passed by the court below. Even though they have applied for the copy of the orders by Application bearing court-fee No.9135/2022, the same have not been issued. Hence the original petition.
4. Heard; Sri.Luke J. Chirayil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In view of the limited relief that I propose to pass, I dispense with notice to the respondents.
5. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that the court below has allowed both Exts.P3 and P5 applications at the instances of the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners assert that they propose to challenge Exts.P3, P5 and P6 orders. Although they have already submitted Application No.9135/2022 dated 14.11.2022, the orders have not been issued. Thus, I am of the view that the court below is to be directed to issue the certified copies of the orders within a time frame and until such time all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3, P5 and P6 orders and the suit to be kept in abeyance.
In the result, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , I dispose of the original petition as follows:
(i) The Court of the Munsiff, Kollam is directed to issue the certified copies of the orders in Exts.P3, P5 and P6, in accordance with law, if the application is in order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one week from today.
(ii) All further proceedings in O.S.No.683/2022 of the Court of the Munsiff, Kollam and the operation of Exts.P3, P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2269/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBERED AS O.S NO: 683/2022 DATED 03.09.2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION WHICH GOT NUMBERED AS I.A NO: 1/2022 IN O.S. NO: 683/2022 DATED 03.09.2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PANEL OF EXPERT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS TO BE APPOINTED AS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR SITE INSPECTION IN I.A NO: 2/2022 IN O.S.NO: 683/2022 DATED 03.09.2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN O.S.
NO:683/2022 DATED 19.09.2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A NO:
4/2022 IN O.S. NO:683/2022 DATED 19.09.2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A. NO:
6/2022 IN O.S. NO:683/2022 DATED 31.10.2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS OF O.S.
NO:683/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UND
