Joy vs Ittiyera @ Thomas

JOY vs Ittiyera @ Thomas

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 24, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1499821

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/1499821
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen
Decided On: Jan 24, 2022
Case Number: OP(C)/1483/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JOY

Respondent

Ittiyera @ Thomas

Excerpt

.....house, p.o.chittlapilly, pin 680 551 15 glimcy paul d/o.tharakan jose, pirathoor house, p.o.engadiyoor, pin 680 615 16 mercy sunny w/o.lazar, neyyan house, p.o.mundur, pin 680 541 17 jose s/o.paranchukutty, kannanaikkal house, mundathicode p.o., pin 680 601 18 latha johny w/o.johny, vadakkoot njarayil house, 19 kavya susan d/o.johny, vadakkoot njarayil house, 20 kripa theresa d/o.johny, vadakkoot njarayil house, by adv g.sreekumar (chelur)this op (civil) having come up for admission on 24.01.2022, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentdated this the 24th day of january, 2022 non-disposal of i.a.1888/2018 in a.s.no.54/2018 on the file of the sub court, chavakkad is under challenge in this original petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india. as of now, the contesting respondents are also not seriously opposing the early disposal of the matter.2. heard both sides.3. a report dated 27.09.2021 given by the sub judge,chavakkad has been incorporated in this case. as per which, the learned sub judge reported that respondent nos.9, 10, 12, 15 and 21 in the i.a. not served so far. the learned sub judge agreed to dispose of i.a.no.1888/2018 within a period of one week and the appeal itself within a period of three months, after completing steps against the above respondents.4. it is true that without completing steps, a matter on merits cannot be considered. therefore, the difficulty expressed by the learned sub judge in the matter of non-completion of steps is having significance.5. here, originally the suit is of the year 1995 and thepresent appeal is against passing of supplementary preliminary decree, after passing the earlier preliminary decree. in this context, the grievance of the petitioner in this case needs to be addressed appropriately. accordingly, this petition is allowed. there shall be a direction to the sub judge, chavakkad to explore service of notice to the above respondents, by substituted service so as.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 4TH MAGHA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.1888/2018 IN AS 54/2018 OF SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD AND I.A.NO.1747/2006 IN OS 561/1995 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD PETITIONERS: JOY AGED 50 YEARS P.O. CHITTATTUKARA, PIN 680 511 BY ADVS. K.S.BHARATHAN ALPHIN ANTONY AADITHYAN S.MANNALI VISAKH ANTONY ABEL ANTONY CHRISTINE MATHEW RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 ITTIYERA @ THOMAS S/O.DEVASSY, VADAKOOTT NJARAYIL HOUSE, P.O. CHITTATTUKARA, PIN 680 511 2 MARY D/O. VADAKOOTT NJARAYIL DEVASSY, W/O.CHIRAYATH LONAPPAN, CHELAKODE DESOM AND POST, PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPILLY TALUK 680 587 3 SOSANNAM W/O.FRANCIS VADAKOOTT NJARAYIL HOUSE, OPP. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, CHOONDAL P.O., CHOONDAL, PIN 680 502 4 ROSILY W/O.MATHEW ARANGASSERY HOUSE, P.O., MUNDUR, PIN 680 541 5 V.J.DAVIS P.O. PARAPPUR, PIN 680 552 6 VARGHESEY P.O.CHITTATTUKARA, PIN 680 511 7 V.J.PAULSON @ PAUL ONAM FAMILY RESTAURANT VASI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.D.JOESPH, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KOONAMUCHI P.O., CHOONDAL, PIN 680 502 8 V.J.SHEELA W/O.P.D.JOESPH, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE,
KOONAMUCHI P.O., CHOONDAL, PIN 680 502 9 JOSE S/O.THOMA, THARAKAN HOUSE, CHOONDAL P.O., CHOONDAL, PIN 680 502 10 GRACY D/O.THOMA, THARAKAN HOUSE, CHOONDAL P.O., CHOONDAL, PIN 680 502 11 SR. ROSE THOMAS D/O.THOMA, THARAKAN HOUSE, PARANNUR P.O., KEECHERY, PIN 680 501 12 FRANCIS S/O.THOMA, THARAKAN HOUSE, PARANNUR P.O., KEECHERY, PIN 680 501 13 N.L.JOY S/O.LAZAR, NEYYAN HOUSE, VELLARAKKAD P.O., PIN 680 584 14 ALFONSA JOSE W/O.JOSE, CHAKKARAMAKKIL HOUSE, P.O.CHITTLAPILLY, PIN 680 551 15 GLIMCY PAUL D/O.THARAKAN JOSE, PIRATHOOR HOUSE, P.O.ENGADIYOOR, PIN 680 615 16 MERCY SUNNY W/O.LAZAR, NEYYAN HOUSE, P.O.MUNDUR, PIN 680 541 17 JOSE S/O.PARANCHUKUTTY, KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, MUNDATHICODE P.O., PIN 680 601 18 LATHA JOHNY W/O.JOHNY, VADAKKOOT NJARAYIL HOUSE, 19 KAVYA SUSAN D/O.JOHNY, VADAKKOOT NJARAYIL HOUSE, 20 KRIPA THERESA D/O.JOHNY, VADAKKOOT NJARAYIL HOUSE, BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of January, 2022 Non-disposal of I.A.1888/2018 in A.S.No.54/2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Chavakkad is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As of now, the contesting respondents are also not seriously opposing the early disposal of the matter.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A report dated 27.09.2021 given by the Sub Judge,

Chavakkad has been incorporated in this case. As per which, the learned Sub Judge reported that respondent Nos.9, 10, 12, 15 and 21 in the I.A. not served so far. The learned Sub Judge agreed to dispose of I.A.No.1888/2018 within a period of one week and the appeal itself within a period of three months, after completing steps against the above respondents.

4. It is true that without completing steps, a matter on merits cannot be considered. Therefore, the difficulty expressed by the learned Sub Judge in the matter of non-completion of steps is having significance.

5. Here, originally the suit is of the year 1995 and the

present appeal is against passing of supplementary preliminary decree, after passing the earlier preliminary decree. In this context, the grievance of the petitioner in this case needs to be addressed appropriately. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the Sub Judge, Chavakkad to explore service of notice to the above respondents, by substituted service so as to facilitate hearing of the delay condonation petition, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from today. Needless to say that the appellant shall co-operate with the Appellate Court for completing steps by opting substituted service. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the court below concerned, within seven days, for compliance and information. This Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1483/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2018 IN IA NO.1627/2016 IN OS NO.561 OF 1995 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.1888/2018 IN AS

NO.54/2018 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF DATED 6.11.2018 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties JOY vs Ittiyera @ Thomas Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen