Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16822
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
K. N. BABU, – Appellant
Versus
K. V. VINEETH, – Respondent
OP(C) 676 2023
B. PRAMOD, BIJU VIGNESWAR AYYAPPADAS
Pending applications to sue as an indigent person do not impede the consideration of other interlocutory reliefs in related proceedings.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Original Petition - 1987 KHC 417 - The court examines the procedural aspects of pending applications while determining the need for abeyance of execution proceedings in light of existing judgments and statutory provisions concerning indigent status.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, defendant in an earlier case, sought to halt further proceedings in a pending case while appealing a prior decree. Applications regarding indigent status and execution stay were pending consideration, leading to potential prejudice.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that despite a prior directive for prompt consideration of the applications, the execution continued, and affirmed that it is the petitioner's responsibility to remind the appellate court of pending applications.
Issues: Whether further proceedings related to execution should be stayed pending consideration of the applications submitted by the petitioner in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of addressing applications related to indigent status and execution stay in an expedited manner to prevent prejudice against the petitioner's rights.
Final Decision: The original petition is disposed of with observations regarding the directions issued.
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed to direct the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kochi, to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in IA No.966/2019 in OS No.60/2015 till the disposal of Appeal Suit (Indigent) No.120/2019 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ernakulam.
2. The petitioner’s case , in brief, is that, he was the defendant in OS No.60/2015 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kochi, which was decreed against him as per Exts P1 judgment and P2 decree. Aggrieved by Ext P2 decree, the petitioner has filed AS (Indigent) No.120/2019 before the Court of the District Judge, Ernakulam (lower Appellate Court). Along with the appeal suit, the petitioner filed IA No.6529/2019 (Ext P4) seeking leave to sue as an indigent person; IA No.6527/2019 (Ext P5) to condone the delay in filing the appeal suit and IA No.6528/2019 (Ext P6) to stay the execution of the decree. Subsequently, he filed OP(C)No.627/2020 before this Court for the expeditious consideration of Exts P5 and P6 applications. By Ext P8 judgment dated 3.3.2020, this Court directed the lower Appellate Court to consider and dispose of the above applications within one month and until such time to keep further proceedings in abeyance. The petitioner contends that, despite Ext P8 judgment, the lower Appellate Court has only considered Ext P5 application and has condoned the delay; but, Ext P6 application is left unattended. In the meantime, the respondent is hastily proceeding with the execution of the decree through IA No.966/2019, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner. Hence the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kochi may be directed to defer further proceedings in the above application till a decision is taken on Exts P4 and P6 applications. Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.B.Pramod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.
4. Aggrieved by Ext P1 judgment and P2 decree, the petitioner has preferred AS(Indigent) No.120/2019 before the lower Appellate Court. Along with the appeal the petitioner filed Exts P4 to P6 applications. Pursuant to Ext P8 judgment passed by this Court, the lower Appellate Court allowed Ext P5 application by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Yet, Exts P4 and P6 applications are pending consideration and the respondent is proceeding with the execution of the decree.
5. In Joseph vs. Jess Raphael [1987 KHC 417] , this Court has held that, even if an application to sue as an indigent person is pending consideration for the want of the report of the Government Pleader, the same will not bar the Court from considering the applications to sue as an indigent person and for other interlocutory reliefs.
6. In the case on hand, by Ext P8 judgment this Court has already directed the lower Appellate Court to consider Ext P6 application.
In the above conspectus, there is no necessity for this Court to again pass an identical direction. It is up to the petitioner to ignite the mind of the lower Appellate Court regarding Ext P8 judgment and the law laid down in Joseph (supra).
With the above observation, the original petition is disposed of.
sd/-
sks/16.3.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF OP(C) 676/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
31.01.2017 IN O. S. NO. 60/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED
31.01.2017 PASSED IN O. S. NO. 60/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUIT (INDIGENT) NO. 120/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I. A. NO. 6529/2019 IN APPEAL SUIT (INDIGENT) NO. 120/2019.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS I. A. NO.
6527/2019 IN APPEAL SUIT (INDIGENT) NO.
120/2019.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS I. A. NO. 6528/2019 IN APPEAL SUIT (INDIGENT) NO. 120/2019.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE I. A. NO. 966/2019 IN O. S. NO. 60/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB CO
