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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 71331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DASAN – Appellant
Versus
YATHRA A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM – Respondent
OP(C) 3329/2017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 3329 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDE DATED 01.11.2017 IN I.A.NO.74/2017 IN OS NO.230 OF 2011 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

DASAN S/O.PARAMESWARAN,KULANGARATHARAVEEDU, PADINJATTUMKARA SOUTH MURI, THIRUMALABHAGOM, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE.

BY ADVS.

SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS:

1 YATHRA,A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTRATION NO 939/2001, MEENU BHAVAN, KALAVAMKODAM P O, CHERTHALA TALUK,REPRESENTED BY PARTNER,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO.

74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER), C.D.RAJENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,MEENUBHAVAN, KALAVAMKODAM P O, PIN – 688 232

2 C.D.RAJENDRAN S/O.NARAYANAN, MEENU BHAVAN,KALAVAMKODAM P O, CHERTHALA TALUK,MANAGING PARTNER OF YATHRA, PIN - 688232

3 R.SHAJI S/O.RAJAPPAN,PUTHUKKARICHIRA KALAVAMKODAM PO, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,PARTNER OF YATHRA, (WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO .74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688232

4 V G RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.GOPINATHAN,VALLAZHATHU VEETTIL, KALAVAMKODAM P O,VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,PARTNER OF YATHRA,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688232

5 C P SURESH S/O.PURUSHAN,CHERUKANI VEEDU, KALAVAMKODAM P O,VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,PARTNER OF YATHRA,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688232

6 P.G.NATARAJAN S/O.GOPALAN,POKKALISSERRY VEEDU, KALAVAMKODAM P O,VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,PARTNER OF YATHRA,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688232

7 S.DINESAN S/O.SANKUNNY,RADHANIVAS, PATTANAKKAD PO ,CHERTHALA, PARTNER OF YATHRA,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688535

8 SUNILDETH S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN,AMRITHAM VEEDU, PATTANAKKAD P O,CHERTHALA, PARTNER OF YATHRA, (WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688535

9 K.MOHANAN S/O.KRISHNAN,KRISHNABHAVANAM @

KUNCHELATHUVEEDU,KALAVAMKODAM P O, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, PARTNER OF YATHRA,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN – 688232

10 DILEEP S/O.THANKAPPAN,PUTHUVAL NIKARTH, KALAVAMKODAM P O, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, PARTNER OF YATHRA,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688232

11 SABU S/O.VISWAN,VADAKKE VARAYIL, KALAVAMKODAM P O,VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, PARTNER OF YATHRA,(WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688232

12 MURALEEDHARAN S/O.PADMANABHAN,ATHIRANIVAS, NEAR KULATHRAKKAD TEMPLE,CHERTHALA P O, CHERTHALA TALUK,KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,PARTNER OF YATHRA, (WRONGLY TYPED IN THE ORDER IN IA NO 74/2017 AS MANAGING PARTNER)

PIN - 688535 BY ADVS.

SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.G.N.DEEPA SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

30.01.2025, THE COURT ON 13.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CR

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, who filed a suit for the recovery of money from a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of transport service, delivered interrogatories for the discovery of facts related to the suit when the defendants denied the plaint claim. Alleging that certain defendants did not fully answer the specific questions put to them while answering the interrogatories through Ext. P4 affidavit, the plaintiff further filed Ext.P12 application under Order XI Rule 11 read with Order XIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for viva voce examination of the defendants.

2. The Sub Court dismissed the said application as per Ext.P13 order by finding that the plaintiff did not specifically state to which question the answers are incomplete or contradictory. The plaintiff challenges the said order by preferring the present original petition.

3. The petitioner contends that as he has no documentary evidence to prove the plaint claim, it is highly necessary to get proper and precise answers to the interrogatories originally submitt

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top