Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ajithkumar vs Sunitha Devi

Ajithkumar vs Sunitha Devi

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 28, 2021
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1716894

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
OP(C)/1982/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajithkumar

Respondent

Sunitha Devi

Excerpt

.....respondent submits that the respondents have no objection in the petitioner being impleaded in the suit.4. it appears that dispute involved in both the suits is regarding a right of way. as noticed, the suits are being jointly tried. no prejudice will be caused if the petitioner, who is a party in one of-: 2 :- the suits, is impleaded in the other suit also. accordingly, the original petition is allowed. the order impugned is set aside. the application ia stand impleaded as additional third defendant in os that os 372/2017 be disposed of within a period of eight months. the period has been extended thereafter for a period of six months, on request. the period expires by the end of january 2021. in view of the above, it is ordered that the additional defendant shall file written statement on or before 15.02.2021 and the trial court shall make every endeavour to have the suit tried anddisposed of before the court closes for summer vacation 2021. sd/- sathish ninan judge kns/- //true copy// p.s. to judge appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: exhibit p1 the true copy of the power of attorney executed by the petitioner. exhibit p2 the true copy of the plaint in o.s.no.374/2017 on the files of the hon'ble munsiff's court, changanassery filed by the exhibit p3 the true copy of i.a.no.8/2020 in o.s.no.374/2017 on the file of the munsiff's court, changanacherry filed by the exhibit p4 the true copy of the order dated 30.11.2020 of the munsiff's court, changanacherry. ------------

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942 OS 374/2017 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY ---------- PETITIONER: AJITHKUMAR AGED 66 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARA PANICKER, RESIDING AT KARIMUTTATHU CHEMPUMPURATHU HOUSE, MADAPPALLY MURI, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 546, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, JOSEPH P.A., 65 YEARS, S/O.ANTHONY, PRAKUZHI VEETTIL, MAMOOD POST, MADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 546. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ RESPONDENTS:

1 SUNITHA DEVI AGED 54 YEARS W/O.DEVI DAYAL, SAVIDHAM, POONITHURA P.O., PETTAH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 038. 2 RAJENDRA PANICKER AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMAR PANICKER, RESIDING AT ASWATHI HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU KARA, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE - 686 101. 3 SOBHANA, AGED 62 YEARS D/O.RADHAMMA, RESIDING AT LATHI NIVAS, MADAPPALLY MURI, MADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK- 686 546. R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SATHISH NINAN, J.

Dated this the 28th day of January, 2021

JUDGMENT

The dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner seeking to get himself impleaded in OS Court, Changanacherry, is under challenge in this original petition.

2. The suit O.S.374/2017 is being tried along with OS 372/2017 wherein the petitioner is one of the defendants. The petitioner is not a party in OS the suit.

3. Learned counsel Sri.Santheep Ankarath appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondents have no objection in the petitioner being impleaded in the suit.

4. It appears that dispute involved in both the suits is regarding a right of way. As noticed, the suits are being jointly tried. No prejudice will be caused if the petitioner, who is a party in one of

-: 2 :- the suits, is impleaded in the other suit also. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The application IA stand impleaded as additional third defendant in OS that OS 372/2017 be disposed of within a period of eight months. The period has been extended thereafter for a period of six months, on request. The period expires by the end of January 2021. In view of the above, it is ordered that the additional defendant shall file written statement on or before 15.02.2021 and the trial court shall make every endeavour to have the suit tried and

disposed of before the court closes for summer vacation 2021. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.374/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANASSERY FILED BY THE EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.8/2020 IN O.S.NO.374/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY FILED BY THE EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. ------------

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial