Basil Attipetty Vs. State of Kerala

Basil Attipetty vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 15, 2012

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/947413

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/947413
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: V. Ramkumar &Amp; K. Harilal
Decided On: Mar 15, 2012
Case Number: F.A.O.No.90 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Basil Attipetty

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

v. ramkumar, j. the appellant who is appearing as a party-in-person, challenges the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the district judge, ernakulam, returning the plaint evidently for production before the proper court. the impugned order merely reads “returned”. o.vii r.10(2) envisages a speaking order. the order returning the plaint under r.10 of o.vii is appelable under o.xliii r.1(a) c.p.c. that was all the more reason why court below ought to have passed speaking order while returning the plaint. the order which reads “returned” is a cryptic and laconic order which cannot stand the scrutiny of a court of appeal. hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is permitted to re-present the plaint before the court below which shall pass a speaking order. dated this the 15th day of march, 2012.

Full Judgment

V. Ramkumar, J.

The appellant who is appearing as a party-in-person, challenges the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam, returning the plaint evidently for production before the proper Court. The impugned order merely reads “returned”. O.VII R.10(2) envisages a speaking order. The order returning the plaint under R.10 of O.VII is appelable under O.XLIII R.1(a) C.P.C. That was all the more reason why Court below ought to have passed speaking order while returning the plaint. The order which reads “returned” is a cryptic and laconic order which cannot stand the scrutiny of a court of appeal. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is permitted to re-present the plaint before the court below which shall pass a speaking order.

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2012.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2012 Same Parties Basil Attipetty vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge V. Ramkumar &Amp; K. Harilal