Pushpavally, vs Rajeev Kumar,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2020

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1733219

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/1733219
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Jan 31, 2020
Case Number: OP(C)/167/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pushpavally,

Respondent

Rajeev Kumar,

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice devan ramachandran friday, the 31st day of january 2020 / 11th magha, 1941 op(c).no.167 of 2020 against the judgment in os 887/2019 of principal munsiff court , kollam petitioner: pushpavally, aged 71 years w/o. late radhakrishnan, rajesh bhavanam, by adv. sri.t.r.rajan respondents: 1 rajeev kumar, 2 rajesh kumar, 3 the manager, co-operative urban bank ltd 960, kollam 691 003. 4 advocate sinu.p.k., advocate commissioner, kollam bar association pin 691 013. r3 by adv. smt.d.p.renu this op (civil) having come up for admission on 31.01.2020, the court on the same day delivered the following: op(c).no.167 of 2020 2judgmentthis original petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking that ext.p2 petition, namely, i.a.no.5586 of 2019 in o.s.no.887 of 2019, be directed to be disposed of by the munsiff's court, kollam, within a time limit to be fixed by this court.2. even though i have heardshri.t.r.rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the afore lines, as also smt.d.p.renu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank - who opposes the afore plea - i fail to understand why this petition was filed before this court, because the petitioner could have certainly sought an early disposal of the afore mentioned i.a. by the court below itself, without having to seek such a relief from this court.3. i say this because, the pleadings op(c).no.167 of 2020 3are deficient as to whether the petitioner has sought an early hearing of i.a.no.5586 of 2019 before the court below; and in the absence of such inputs being available to this court, i do not think that it will be justified or prudent for this court to entertain this petition.in the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the other contentions of the parties, i dismiss this original petition; however leaving liberty to the petitioner to seek an early hearing of i.a.no.5586 of 2019 in o.s.no.887 of 2019 on

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 11TH MAGHA, 1941 OP(C).No.167 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 887/2019 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT , KOLLAM PETITIONER: PUSHPAVALLY, AGED 71 YEARS W/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, RAJESH BHAVANAM, BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENTS: 1 RAJEEV KUMAR, 2 RAJESH KUMAR, 3 THE MANAGER, CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD 960, KOLLAM 691 003. 4 ADVOCATE SINU.P.K., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM BAR ASSOCIATION PIN 691 013. R3 BY ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No.167 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking that Ext.P2 petition, namely, I.A.No.5586 of 2019 in O.S.No.887 of 2019, be directed to be disposed of by the Munsiff's Court, Kollam, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. Even though I have heard

Shri.T.R.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the afore lines, as also Smt.D.P.Renu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank - who opposes the afore plea - I fail to understand why this petition was filed before this Court, because the petitioner could have certainly sought an early disposal of the afore mentioned I.A. by the Court below itself, without having to seek such a relief from this Court.

3. I say this because, the pleadings OP(C).No.167 OF 2020 3

are deficient as to whether the petitioner has sought an early hearing of I.A.No.5586 of 2019 before the Court below; and in the absence of such inputs being available to this Court, I do not think that it will be justified or prudent for this Court to entertain this petition.

In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the other contentions of the parties, I dismiss this original petition; however leaving liberty to the petitioner to seek an early hearing of I.A.No.5586 of 2019 in O.S.No.887 of 2019 on the files of the Munsiff's Court appropriately, which shall then be considered by the said Court as per law.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/31.1.2020 OP(C).No.167 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 887/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM . EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 5586/2019 IN O.S. NO. 887/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF LOAN APPLICATION DTD. 26.6.2012 ALONG WITH MORTGAGE AND AGREEMENTS. MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Pushpavally, vs Rajeev Kumar, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran