Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Varunni Vs. Ramadas

Varunni vs Ramadas

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 28, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1095830

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Varunni

Respondent

Ramadas

Excerpt

.....expeditiously. it is stated that though i.a.no.8332 of 2013 was filed on 30.9.2013 and it was taken up for consideration on 4.10.2013 and 29.10.2013, it has not so far been heard and disposed of. the petitioner has averred that unless the application is expeditiously heard and disposed of and in the meanwhile the clay is removed from the plaint schedule property, the relief prayed for in the application would become infructuous.2. when the original petition came up for hearing before me on 11.10.2013, while admitting the original petition and ordering notice to the respondent, i passed an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from removing clay from the plaint schedule property in o.s.no. 935 of 2013.3. i heard sri.k.b.gangesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and sri.k.s.bharathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. though the learned counsel on both sides addressed arguments at length on merits, i am of the opinion that the proper course would be to direct the trial court to hear and dispose of i.a.no.8332 of 2013 expeditiously and with a further observation that the interim order passed by this court was only to preserve the status quo as it obtained on 11.10.2013 so as to prevent i.a.no.8332 of 2013 o.p.(c) no.3473/2013 3 from becoming infructuous. i accordingly dispose of the original petition with a direction to the court of the subordinate judge of thrissur to hear and dispose of i.a.no.8332 of 2013 expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from 29.10.2013. registry to issue a certified copy, if applied for today itself. p.n.ravindran, (judge) vps o.p.(c) no.3473/2013 4 o.p.(c) no.3473/2013 5

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE28H DAY OF OCTOBER20136TH KARTHIKA, 1935 OP(C).No. 3473 of 2013 (O) --------------------------- (I.A.No.8332/2013 IN OS No.935/2013 OF SUB COURT,THRISSUR) PETITIONER: ------------------- VARUNNI, S/O.PYLIKKUTTY, THERATTIL HOUSE, PADAVARAD DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.ATHIRAA.MENON RESPONDENT: --------------------- RAMADAS S/O.BALAN, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE PERUMBILLYSSERRY DESOM, CHOVVUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLYHEARD ON2810-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3473 of 2013 (O) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED2408-2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO9352013 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO74632013 IN O.S NO9352013 ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT THRISSUR EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED2708-2013 FILED IN OS NO9352013 ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO833213 IN O.S NO9352013 ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPS PA TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

--------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3473 of 2013 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.935 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Thrissur. The respondent is the sole defendant therein. The suit instituted by the petitioner is one for a specific performance of an agreement for sale of Swamy Clay Works. A copy of the said agreement for sale is on record as Ext.P1. Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed I.A.No.7463 of 2013 for an interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property or from encumbering it or from creating documents in respect thereof pending disposal of the suit. On that application an ad interim order of injunction was passed and it is still in force. He thereafter filed I.A.No.8332 of 2013 in O.S.No.935 of 2013 (Ext.P6) wherein he has prayed for an interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from removing clay from the land or the machinery from the Swamy Clay Works or from demolishing the buildings therein or from committing acts of waste therein. In this original petition filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner prays for an O.P.(C) No.3473/2013 2 order directing the trial court to hear and dispose of the said application expeditiously. It is stated that though I.A.No.8332 of 2013 was filed on 30.9.2013 and it was taken up for consideration on 4.10.2013 and 29.10.2013, it has not so far been heard and disposed of. The petitioner has averred that unless the application is expeditiously heard and disposed of and in the meanwhile the clay is removed from the plaint schedule property, the relief prayed for in the application would become infructuous.

2. When the original petition came up for hearing before me on 11.10.2013, while admitting the original petition and ordering notice to the respondent, I passed an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from removing clay from the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 935 of 2013.

3. I heard Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Bharathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Though the learned counsel on both sides addressed arguments at length on merits, I am of the opinion that the proper course would be to direct the trial court to hear and dispose of I.A.No.8332 of 2013 expeditiously and with a further observation that the interim order passed by this Court was only to preserve the status quo as it obtained on 11.10.2013 so as to prevent I.A.No.8332 of 2013 O.P.(C) No.3473/2013 3 from becoming infructuous. I accordingly dispose of the original petition with a direction to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thrissur to hear and dispose of I.A.No.8332 of 2013 expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from 29.10.2013. Registry to issue a certified copy, if applied for today itself. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps O.P.(C) No.3473/2013 4 O.P.(C) No.3473/2013 5

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial