Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA MONDAY, THE1T DAY OF SEPTEMBER201410TH BHADRA, 1936 FAO.No. 60 of 2014 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN I.A.NO.3353/2012 IN OS5852012 DATED17H DECEMBER2013ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT IN F.A.O./RESPONDENT NO.1 IN I.A.-DEFENDANT NO. 1 IN SUIT: ----------------------------------------------------------- P.S.SEBAN S/O. SEBASTIAN, AGED49 PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, VAZHAKKAL KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682030. BY ADVS.SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS IN FAO/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS2AND3IN I.A. PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS2& 3 IN SUIT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED64YEARS S/O. LAE SANKUNNI, VELIYIL HOUSE NOW RESIDING AT RAMARADHA NILAYAM EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, VENNALA.P.O. KANAYANNOOR TALUK-682028.
2. SOM ENTERPRISE LTD., 2, AVENUE4 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD-500034, INDIA.
3. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. N.H. CONNECTIVITY ICT, VALLARPADOM, WARD NO. 2 GODWON ROAD, CHERANALLOOR, COCHIN-682034. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SUDHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.GOPI R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU SHANKAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN VISWAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.WINSTON R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER
S HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0109-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AL/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.V.ASHA, JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No.60 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of September 2014 JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J., This appeal is filed from the order in I.A. No. 3353 of 2012 in O.S.No. 585 of 2012 dated 17.12.2013 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam.
2. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the documents relied upon, have not been gone through by the court below and that actually no prima facie case is established for continuance of the order.
3. We heard the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant Sri. S.V.Balalkrishna Iyer. He submitted that there is no finding on one crucial aspect viz. regarding the veracity of the averment that with intent to delay the execution of the decree that may be passed the appellant had acted in any manner prejudicial to the respondent. Various other contentions have also been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which are refuted F.A.O.No.60/2014 :2: by learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the view that in the light of the various details brought to notice by learned Sr.Counsel for the appellant, there can be a direction to dispose of the suit itself, since the suit is of the year 2012. It is submitted that the case is posted on 17.9.2014 for framing issues. We direct the court below to expedite the trial of the suit and at any rate, it will be disposed of, within a period of five months from the date of production of of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) AL/- True copy P.A to Judge