Saajitha vs Prabha Rani

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Mar 29, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1344549

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/1344549
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Mar 29, 2023
Case Number: RP/317/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Saajitha

Respondent

Prabha Rani

Excerpt

.....for r1 laya mary joseph - for r1 boby m shikhar - for r1 c m andrews - for r1 this review petition having come up for hearing on 29.03.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe present application is submitted to review the earlier order dated 30.09.2022 in i.a.no.1/2022, by which the stay granted was vacated on the ground of non compliance of the direction issued to furnish security. it is submitted that, in fact, the security was furnished and it was accepted by the trial court. but, it was not brought to the notice of this court at the time when the impugned order was passed. the impugned order is extracted below for reference.“it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the conditional order of stay so far not complied with. if that be so, the interim order will stand vacated.” the said order was passed based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the conditional order of stay was not complied with. what is ordered by this court is to the effect that if it was not complied with, theinterim order will stand vacated. so the ordervacating the interim order is also a conditional one, would operate only when there is non compliance of conditional order of stay. necessarily, when there is compliance, the order of stay will stand operative and will continue. hence,there is nothing to review in the matter. the ordervacating the interim order is conditional, depends on the fact whether sufficient security was furnished before the trial court or not. it is submitted that sufficient security was furnished and it was accepted by the trial court. necessarily, the order of injunction will stand operative. hence, revision petition will stand dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge rkr-29/03/23

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2022 IN I.A.NO.01/2022 IN R.F.A.NO. REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

1 SAAJITHA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. LATE T.C. KUNHABDULLA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673105 2 AADIL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. T.C. KUNHABDULLA, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673105 3 SHAMILL ABDULLA, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. T.C. KUNHABDULLA, DREAM HOUSE, V.M. 16/294 A, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUPPANAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673105 4 MINNU ABDULLA, AGED 9 YEARS, D/O T.C. KUNHABDULLA, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NEXT FRIEND SAAJITHA, W/O T.C. KUNHABDULLA, AGED 40 YEARS, DREAM HOUSE, V.M. TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673105 BY ADVS. U.K.DEVIDAS K.K.ANILRAJ

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 PRABHA RANI,D/O LATE K.I. MADHAVAN, AGED 72 YEARS, 9D, SEIKEN JJ RETREAT, KOOTTOLI, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE -673016, KERALA STATE ( PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.304. ADISHWAR APARTMENTS 34, FEROZESHAH ROAD, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001 2 T C MOIDU HAJI, S/O KUNHABDULLA, THAZHE CHANTHAM KANDIYIL, 3 T C KUNHAMI, W/O MOIDU HAJI, AGED 61 YEARS THAZHE CHANTHAM KANDIYIL, BY ADVS SHYAM PADMAN - FOR R1 ASWATHI SHYAM - FOR R1 HARISH ABRAHAM - FOR R1 LAYA MARY JOSEPH - FOR R1 BOBY M SHIKHAR - FOR R1 C M ANDREWS - FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 29.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The present application is submitted to review the earlier order dated 30.09.2022 in I.A.No.1/2022, by which the stay granted was vacated on the ground of non compliance of the direction issued to furnish security. It is submitted that, in fact, the security was furnished and it was accepted by the trial court. But, it was not brought to the notice of this court at the time when the impugned order was passed. The impugned order is extracted below for reference.

“It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the conditional order of stay so far not complied with. If that be so, the interim order will stand vacated.” The said order was passed based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the conditional order of stay was not complied with. What is ordered by this Court is to the effect that if it was not complied with, the

interim order will stand vacated. So the order

vacating the interim order is also a conditional one, would operate only when there is non compliance of conditional order of stay. Necessarily, when there is compliance, the order of stay will stand operative and will continue. Hence,

there is nothing to review in the matter. The order

vacating the interim order is conditional, depends on the fact whether sufficient security was furnished before the trial court or not. It is submitted that sufficient security was furnished and it was accepted by the trial court. Necessarily, the order of injunction will stand operative. Hence, revision petition will stand dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE rkr-29/03/23

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Saajitha vs Prabha Rani Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan