Jayakumar.V.G @ Jayakumar vs Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar M

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1353639

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/1353639
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: May 31, 2023
Case Number: CRP/95/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayakumar.V.G @ Jayakumar

Respondent

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar M

Excerpt

.....the court on the same day delivered the following:o r d e rthe challenge under this revision is against ext.p11 order, by which the trial court rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of an election petition. the allegation in the election petition is the non-disclosure and non- discharge of an existing liability by the returned candidate to the panchayath, which would prima facie satisfy dis-qualification to contest the election. the trial court hence found that election petition is maintainable under ext.p11 order. it is against that order, the returned candidate came up with this revision. it would tell upon what is behind it. there is much weight in the submission made by the respondent that the attempt of the returned candidate is to drag the matter in one or other flimsy grounds and as such, there will be a direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the election petition within a time schedule of three months from the next posting date and report compliance. needless to say that there is no sufficient ground much less any ground for this revision. hence, the revision petition will stand dismissed with the abovesaid direction. sd/- p.somarajan judge msp appendix of crp 95/2023 respondent annexures annexure-i true copy of the relevant page (page number 5) containing paragraph 3.3 of the local fund audit report annexure-ii true copy of the order/letter dated 20.1.2017 of the panchayat director annexure-iii true copy of the information/letter no. c3- public information officer/secretary of the kodamthuruth grama panchayat annexure-iv true copy of the judgment dated 12.11.2020 in w.p.(c) no. 24375/2020 of this honourable court

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRP NO. 95 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1/2022 IN OP(ELE) NO. 4/2021 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: JAYAKUMAR.V.G @ JAYAKUMAR, 59 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAN NAIR, ALOORPUTHANPURA, WARD NO.11, KODAMTHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTHIYATHODU.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN - 688533 V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR MAYA M. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL KUMAR M, S/O MADAHVAN PILLAI, SREEVALSAM, WARD NO.5, KODAMTHURUTH MURI, KODAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA PIN - 688533 V.N.SANKARJEE V.N.MADHUSUDANAN R.UDAYA JYOTHI M.M.VINOD C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K. M.SUSEELA THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The challenge under this revision is against Ext.P11 order, by which the trial court rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of an election petition. The allegation in the election petition is the non-disclosure and non- discharge of an existing liability by the returned candidate to the Panchayath, which would prima facie satisfy dis-qualification to contest the election. The trial court hence found that election petition is maintainable under Ext.P11 order. It is against that order, the returned candidate came up with this revision. It would tell upon what is behind it. There is much weight in the submission made by the respondent that the attempt of the returned candidate is to drag the matter in one or other flimsy grounds and as such, there will be a direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the election petition within a time schedule of three months from the next posting date and report compliance. Needless to say that there is no sufficient ground much less any ground for this revision. Hence, the revision petition will stand dismissed with the abovesaid direction. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp APPENDIX OF CRP 95/2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE (PAGE NUMBER 5) CONTAINING PARAGRAPH 3.3 OF THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT REPORT ANNEXURE-II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/LETTER DATED 20.1.2017 OF THE PANCHAYAT DIRECTOR ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION/LETTER NO. C3- PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/SECRETARY OF THE KODAMTHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYAT ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO. 24375/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Jayakumar.V.G @ Jayakumar vs Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar M Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan