Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3719
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 FAO NO. 225 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA (RP) NO.23/2018 DATED 22.10.2018 IN AS
44/2008 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
K.J.THOMAS AGED 70 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, ASAMKUTTIYIL HOUSE, SULTAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.RAJENDRAN NAIR M.SANTHY JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SREE PULPALLY DEWASWAM REP. BY ITS MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, S. BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.3/2019, 228/2018 AND 229/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 FAO NO. 3 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A(RP) NO.49/2018 DATED 16.10.2018 IN AS 22/2010 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI PULPALLY UNIT,PULPALLY POST,REP.BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT P.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN,KUDILIL HOUSE, PULPALLY VILLAGE,SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 SREE PULPALLY DEWASWOM REP.BY ITS MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER,PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM,S.BATHERY TALUK,WAYANAD DISTRICT.
2 SASIDHARAN AGED 59 YEARS S/O MADHAVAN,PUNNAPPURATH,ADIKOLLI, PULPALLY.P.O. AND VILLAGE,SULTHANBATHERY TALUK,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.225/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 FAO NO. 228 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.(RP) NO.24/2018 DATED 22.10.2018 IN AS 45/2008 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
K.J. THOMAS AGED 70 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, ASAMKUTTIYIL HOUSE, SULTAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SREE PULPALLY DEWASWAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, S. BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT BY ADV SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.225/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 25TH MAGHA, 1943 FAO NO. 229 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.(RP) NO.48/2018 DATED 16.10.2018 IN AS 21/2010 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY APPELLANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI PULPALLY UNIT, PULPALLY POST, REP. BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT P.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, KUDILIL HOUSE, PULPALLY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SREE PULPALLY DEWASWAM REP. BY ITS MANAGER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 579.
BY ADV T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 14.02.2022, ALONG WITH FAO.225/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Four suits were instituted by four respective plaintiffs for injunction simplicitor without any substantial prayer in respect of devaswom property. Thereafter they went away from the suit without prosecuting the same and caused to end the same for dismissal for default (all the four suits). Thereafter, four restoration applications were filed by the respective plaintiffs. On dismissal of the restoration applications, all of them came up in first appeals, wherein also the very same device was played by keeping away from the first appellate court and caused to dismiss the respective appeals for non-prosecution. Then again, they preferred four restoration applications before the first appellate court. Against the order passed in the respective applications, these four appeals are preferred before this court.
2. The conduct of all the respective plaintiffs in four suits are identical and similar which would show the collusive nature and the device played effectively by them so as to drag and defeat the scope of adjudication and thereby they have dragged the matter for about fourteen years and twelve years respectively. In fact, the respective plaintiffs in the four suits have played fraud on the respective courts by playing a device and thereby defeated the adjudication of the alleged dispute which would prima facie show that they do not have any probable or debatable case. The very conduct of all the plaintiffs in four identical suits would sufficiently show their mischievous intention to defeat the valuable right of devaswom over the property under the guise of pending suit/proceedings and for that purpose prolonged and defeated the adjudication of respective suits for a period of more than twelve years. In other words, the right of devaswom over the property was put under the shadow of the suit filed by these plaintiffs and the appeals thereof, that too, without any adjudication of dispute. This would be illustrative of how the system is working in the hands of unscrupulous litigants, the plaintiffs herein, by making use of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure for delaying and defeating justice without permitting to adjudicate the dispute, if any available. It is pertaining to a devaswom property and that would prima facie show what is behind it especially when it constitutes delaying and defeating for more than twelve years. They are actually playing hide and seek by using the provisions of the Code by filing restoration applications one after another and keeping away from the court on all relevant time without prosecuting the suit. Necessarily, all these appeals should be dismissed with cost throughout. I do so.
All the appeals are dismissed with cost throughout.
