V.G. Udayakumar vs M/S Royal Castle Tiknar Aprtment Owners Welfare Association

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 27, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1287618

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1287618
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 27, 2024
Case Number: OP(C)/185/2024
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.G. Udayakumar

Respondent

M/S Royal Castle Tiknar Aprtment Owners Welfare Association

Excerpt

.....suit was listed for trial, the plaintiff preferred two applications, exts.p8 and p9, for impleading additional 4th defendant and for amending the plaint. the trial court after hearing both sides dismissed those applications as per exts.p10 and p11 orders. it is challenging those orders, the plaintiffs approached this court.3. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.4. i went through exts.p10 and p11 orders. both of them are notspeaking orders. in ext.p10 the trial court simply stated that there is no need at all to implead the proposed defendant. no reason has been stated. the question whether the proposed defendant is a necessary party has not been considered at all. so also in ext.p11 order, the amendment application was dismissed without considering it on merits. whether the amendment is necessary or not has not been considered at all. in short, the trial court ..4.. dismissed both applications without going into the merits of those applications, probably for the reason that the suit had already been listed. the delay alone is not at all a ground to dismiss the applications. those have to be considered on merits.5. for these reasons, without going into the merits of exts.p8 andp9 applications, exts.p10 and p11 are set aside. the trial court is directed to dispose exts.p8 and p9 on merits in accordance with law, after hearing both sides, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgmentthe o.p.(c) is disposed of as above. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge apa ..5.. appendix of op(c) 185/2024 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of the suit o.s.no. 213 of 2019 filed before the munsiff court, ernakulam exhibit p2 true copy of the written statement fled by the 1st defendant in o.s.no. 213 of 2019 exhibit p3 true copy of the statement filed by the 2nd defendant in o.s.no. 213 of 2019 exhibit p4 true copy of the written statement filed by the 3rd.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 185 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2024 IN OS NO.213 OF 2019 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 1, 2 & 4:

1 V.G. UDAYAKUMAR AGED 60 YEARS, S/O GOVINDA SHENOI, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 4C, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682035 2 JOY C.G AGED 69 YEARS, LATE C.P. GEORGE, RESIDING AT FLAT 5D, ROYAL CASTLE TINKAR BUILDING, DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035 3 V. SANTHARAM AGED 64 YEARS, S/O A.V. KAMATH, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4C, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035

BY ADVS. AMBILY PREMKUMAR K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS & PLAINTIFF NO.3: 1 M/S ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR APRTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REG.NO. ER 139/2012, DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD, ERNAKULAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 682035 2 BABU XAVIER FLAT NO.8 H & I, ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR BUILDING , ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035 ..2.. 3 SINDHU W/O NARAYANAKUTTY, FLAT NO. 9 PH, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035 4 K. ABDUL LATHEEF S/O KASSIM, FLAT NO. 3C, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035 BY ADVS. George Mathew KARAMAYIL GEORGE THOMAS M M SABIR N.S SUNIL KUMAR A.G(K/000741/2003) MATHEW K.T.(K/001047/2018) GEORGE K.V.(K/000060/2019) STEPHY K REGI(K/001025/2020) MEDHA B.S.(K/001625/2023) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..3..

JUDGMENT

Ext.P10 and P11 orders passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam (for short, 'the trial court') are under challenge in this original petition.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4. The respondents are

the defendants and plaintiff No.3. The suit is one for setting asiding two documents and for a permanent prohibitory injunction. After the suit was listed for trial, the plaintiff preferred two applications, Exts.P8 and P9, for impleading additional 4th defendant and for amending the plaint. The trial court after hearing both sides dismissed those applications as per Exts.P10 and P11 orders. It is challenging those orders, the plaintiffs approached this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. I went through Exts.P10 and P11 orders. Both of them are not

speaking orders. In Ext.P10 the trial Court simply stated that there is no need at all to implead the proposed defendant. No reason has been stated. The question whether the proposed defendant is a necessary party has not been considered at all. So also in Ext.P11 order, the amendment application was dismissed without considering it on merits. Whether the amendment is necessary or not has not been considered at all. In short, the trial court ..4.. dismissed both applications without going into the merits of those applications, probably for the reason that the suit had already been listed. The delay alone is not at all a ground to dismiss the applications. Those have to be considered on merits.

5. For these reasons, without going into the merits of Exts.P8 and

P9 applications, Exts.P10 and P11 are set aside. The trial court is directed to dispose Exts.P8 and P9 on merits in accordance with law, after hearing both sides, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment

The O.P.(C) is disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA ..5.. APPENDIX OF OP(C) 185/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FLED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S.NO. 778 OF 2017 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN, O.S.NO. 778 OF 2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 5 TO 7 (PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 AND 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN) IN O.S.NO. 778 OF EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 7 OF 2024 FILED BY PETITIONERS HEREIN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 9 OF 2024 IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 7 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 9 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties V.G. Udayakumar vs M/S Royal Castle Tiknar Aprtment Owners We... Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath