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

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16771

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Y.SLEEBACHAEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(C) 1526/2019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941

OP(C).No.1524 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.1304/2019 IN OS 752/2010 OF SUB COURT,

PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

Y.SLEEBACHEN,

AGED 54 YEARS,

S/O.YOHANNAN, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU,

CHENGAMANAD P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,

KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.C.S.MANILAL

SRI.S.NIDHEESH

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS:

1

THE STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

SIRUVANI, PROJECT CIRCLE, PALAKKADU.

3

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

K.K.I.P.DIVISION, ATHIKODE, KOZHINJAMPARA P.O.,

PALAKKADU.

BY ADV

SR.GP M.I. JOHNSON

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2019,

HEARD ALONG WITH O.P.(C)NO.1526/2019 & O.P.(C)NO.1527/2019, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C).No.1524 OF 2019 & Conn. Cases

2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941

OP(C).No.1526 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IA NO.1303/2019 IN OS 738/2010 OF SUB COURT,

PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

Y.SLEEBACHAEN,

AGED 54 YEARS,

S/O. YOHANNAN, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU,

CHENGAMANAD P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,

KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.C.S.MANILAL

SRI.S.NIDHEESH

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

1

STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

SIRUVANI, PROJECT CIRCLE,

PALAKKADU - 678 001.

3

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

K.K.I.P. DIVISION, ATHIKODE,

KOZHINJAMPARA P.O., PALAKKADU - 678 555

BY ADV.

SR.GP M.I JOHNSON

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2019,

HEARD ALONG WITH O.P.(C)NO.1524/2019 & O.P.(C)NO.1527/2019, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C).No.1524 OF 2019 & Conn. Cases

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941

OP(C).No.1527 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.1305/2019 IN OS 778/2010 OF SUB

COURT, PALAKKAD

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

Y.SLEEBACHEN,

AGED 54 YEARS,

S/O.YOHANNAN, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU,

CHENGAMANAD P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,

KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.C.S.MANILAL

SRI.S.NIDHEESH

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

1

THE STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

SIRUVANI, PROJECT CIRCLE, PALAKKADU - 678 001.

BY ADV.

SR.GP M.I JOHNSON

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2019,

HEARD ALONG WITH O.P.(C)NO.1524/2019 & O.P.(C)NO.1526/2019, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C).No.1524 OF 2019 & Conn. Cases

4

COMMON JUDGMENT

[O.P.(C).NO.1524/2019,

O.P.(C)NO.1526/2019

O.P.(C)NO.1527/2019]

The petitioner who is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.738 of 2010, O.S.No.752 of 2010 &

O.S.No.778 of 2010 of Sub Court, Palakkad is

aggrieved by the dismissal of his application

for amendment.

2.

According to him, he sought for

amendment pursuant to the report of the expert

by which he was entitled for an enhanced amount.

The Court below dismissed it on the ground that,

there was considerable delay and the question of

limitation may arise.

3.

Having considered the fact that the

petitioner has approached this Court on an

earlier occasion for an appointment of an

expert, who after referring to the records

OP(C).No.1524 OF 2019 & Conn. Cases

5

maintained by the respondents filed a report,

pursuant to which this the amendment is sought.

The petitioner may be permitted to amend his

plaint. Thereupon the respondents will be

entitled to file their additional written

statement. The question

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