Gopakumar vs Jayaraman

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2019

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1890762

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/1890762
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar
Decided On: Dec 20, 2019
Case Number: OP(C)/1383/2018

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopakumar

Respondent

Jayaraman

Excerpt

.....is the plaintiff in o.s.no.844/2014 on the files of the munsiffscourt, chalakudy. the petitioner filed i.a.no.120/2018 praying for recording the compromise as provided under order xxiii rule 3 of cpc. the court below as per ext.p5 order dismissed the said interlocutory application, against whichthis original petition has been filed.2. heard.3. it appears from ext.p5 that allthe parities were not the parties to the mediation agreement. it further appears from ext.p5 that the parties were not willing to comply with the terms of the agreement. in view of the above, the court-3- below recorded that the decree could not be passed in terms of the mediation agreement. accordingly, the court below dismissed i.a.no.120/2018. since the court below found that no enforceable decree could bepassed on the basis of the mediation agreement, the court below declined to record the composition. it appears that all the parties were not the parties to theagreement.4. the learned counsel for thepetitioner could not bring to the notice of this court with regard to any illegality or incorrectness in ext.p5 order warranting interference by this court. having gone through the relevant inputs, i do not find any reason to hold that ext.p5 order passed -4- by the court below suffers from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness warranting interference by this court. in the result, this o.p.(c) stands dismissed. however, i make it clear that thisjudgment will not stand in the way of theparties in approaching the court below again, once the parties settle the matter. sd/- b. sudheendra kumar, judge stk -5- appendix.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 844/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY PETITIONER/S: GOPAKUMAR AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, KIZHAKKANAMBILLY HOUSE, MELOOR DESOM, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT/S:
1 JAYARAMAN S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, KIZHAKKANAMBILLY HOUSE, KALADY DESOM, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR 2 AJITHKUMAR S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS,KIZHAKKANAMBILLY HOUSE, KALADY DESOM,CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR 3 GEETHA RAMACHANDRAN D/O.RAMAN NAIR, W/O.THEKKEDATH RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS, VASUPURAM DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4 SUMATHY SUMATHYAMMA AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.RAMAN NAIR, KIZHAKKANAMBILLY HOUSE, MELOOR DESOM,CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.844/2014 on the files of the Munsiffs

Court,      Chalakudy.            The       petitioner     filed
I.A.No.120/2018           praying       for    recording       the
compromise        as    provided        under    Order     XXIII
Rule    3   of     CPC.        The     court    below    as   per
Ext.P5        order            dismissed          the         said
Interlocutory           Application,           against     which

this original petition has been filed.

2. Heard.

3. It appears from Ext.P5 that all

the    parities        were    not     the    parties    to    the
mediation         agreement.           It    further     appears
from     Ext.P5        that     the     parties     were      not
willing      to    comply       with    the     terms    of   the
agreement.         In view of the above, the court

-3- below recorded that the decree could not be passed in terms of the mediation agreement. Accordingly, the court below dismissed I.A.No.120/2018. Since the court below found that no enforceable decree could be

passed      on    the        basis     of      the     mediation
agreement,       the        court     below         declined       to
record the composition.                It appears that all
the   parties      were       not     the     parties       to   the

agreement.

4. The learned counsel for the

petitioner could not bring to the notice of this Court with regard to any illegality or incorrectness in Ext.P5 order warranting interference by this Court. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I do not find any reason to hold that Ext.P5 order passed -4- by the court below suffers from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness warranting interference by this court. In the result, this O.P.(C) stands dismissed. However, I make it clear that this

judgment will not stand in the way of the

parties in approaching the court below again, once the parties settle the matter. Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK -5- APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1383/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.844/2014 DATED 22.9.2014 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.NO.5/2015 DATED 31.1.2015 FILED BEFORE HON'BLE JFCM, CHALAKUDY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED IN M.C.NO.5/2015 DATED 19.8.2015 BEFORE MEDIATOR, MEDIATION CENTRE, CHALAKUDY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.120/2018 IN O.S.NO.844/2014 DATED 6.1.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.120/2018 IN O.S.NO.844/2014 DATED 7.2.2018.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2019 Same Parties Gopakumar vs Jayaraman Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar