SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 71012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LASAR @ PAULRAJ – Appellant
Versus
SAVIOUR – Respondent
OP(C) 2067/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 2067 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2023 IN OPTR NO.142 OF 2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 TO 10:

1 LASAR @ PAULRAJ AGED 60 YEARS S/O LATE AROGYASWAMI NALLUVEEDUCHALLA, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

2 JOHN SELVARAJ AGED 72 YEARS S/O MARIYACHINNU, NALLUVEEDUCHALLA, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557 3 JHON JOSEPH AGED 56 YEARS S/O MARIYACHINNU NALLUVEEDUCHALLA, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

4 AMALADAS AGED 65 YEARS S/O MARIYANAYAKKAM NALLUVEEDUCHALLA, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

5 DEEPAK GABRIEL AGED 43 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVADAS NALLUVEEDUCHALLA, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

6 JAYASEELAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O LATE GURUSWAMI MANIYAKKARANCHALLA PARISIKKAL POST, VADAKARAPATHY AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678566

7 SAVIOUR ALIAS LIYO SAVIOUR AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE GURUSWAMI MANIYAKKARANCHALLA, PARISIKKAL POST, VADAKARAPATHY AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678566

8 JAMES @ JAMES DEVARAJ AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE GURUSWAMI MANIYAKKARANCHALLA PARISIKKAL POST, VADAKARAPATHY AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678566

9 LOUISMARY AGED 63 YEARS W/O LATE MICHAEL @ GEORGE MICHAEL MANIYAKKARANCHALLA PARISIKKAL POST, VADAKARAPATHY AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678566 BY ADVS.

R.HARISHANKAR M.N.MATHEW ERFANA PARAMBADAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 & RESPONDENTS 2, 11:

1 SAVIOUR AGED 62 YEARS S/O LATE SILUVAIRAYAR KANAKKANKALATHIL, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

2 SANDHYAVU @ JAMES AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE SILUVAIRAYAR KANAKKANKALATHIL, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

3 DANIEL DHARMARAJ AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE SILUVAIRAYAR KANAKKANKALATHIL, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557 4 KANAKAPPAN AGED 59 YEARS S/O LATE JOHN KURUSU KANAKKANKALATHIL, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

5 DEVADAS AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE JHON KURUSU KANAKKANKALATHIL, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

6 PETER AGED 51 YEARS S/O LATE JHON KURUSU KANAKKANKALATHIL, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

7 PAKKIYAN AGED 64 YEARS S/O LATE AROGYASWAMI NALLUVEEDUCHALLA, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557

8 CHARLES XAVIER AGED 61 YEARS S/O LATE JOHN KURUSU KANAKKANKALATHIL, VADAKARAPATHHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 678557 BY ADVS.

RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY BINOY VASUDEVAN K.V.ANTONY(K/522/2015)

A.P.BEELAMMA(K/741/2013)

ARUL MURALIDHARAN(K/000853/2018)

R.MANIKANTAN(M-697)

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

30.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 30th day of May, 2024

JUDGMENT

This Original Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed in Original Petition(Transfer) No.142/2022. 2. As per Ext.P11 order passed by the District Court, Palakkad, the learned District Judge transferred O.S. Nos.158/2015, 197/2022 and 202/2022 pending on the file of Munsiff Court, Chittur to the Additional Sub Court, Palakkad for joint trial with O.S. No.149/2022.

3. Heard both sides.

4. It is not much in dispute that the properties involved in all the four suits are similar in nature. The parties are also more or less the same. Considering the pleadings in all the suits, all of them are to be tried together. The grievance of the petitioners is that O.S. No.158/2015 was filed as early as in 2015 and the transfer was effected when it was ripe for trial. The fact that one of the case is ripe for trial, is not a ground to deny transfer, since all the suits are connected and is in respect of the same property. Hence, this Original Petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top