Jewel Rocks Hire Purchase & Kuries ... vs Sunil Bava

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7044 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 June, 2022

Kerala High Court
Jewel Rocks Hire Purchase & Kuries ... vs Sunil Bava on 17 June, 2022
OP(C) NO. 799 OF 2017
                                    1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
  FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       OP(C) NO. 799 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 1168/2010 OF PRINCIPAL SUB
               COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:

            JEWEL ROCKS HIRE PURCHASE & KURIES PVT LTD
            KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
            MANAGING DIRECTOR.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
            SMT.R.RAJITHA
            SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR
            SRI.VYSAKH VIJAYAN



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       SUNIL BAVA
            S/O.SANTHOSH BAVA, SUDHARMMA, PERINGAVU, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT-680008.

    2       PINKY THAPPAR
            W/O.RAKESH THAPPAR, SUDHARMMA, PERINGAVU,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT-680008.

            BY ADV SMT.C.S.RAJANI




     THIS     OP   (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION    ON
17.06.2022,     THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME      DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 799 OF 2017
                               2



                        JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed to set aside the order dated 21.01.2017 in I.A.No.4823/2016 in O.S.No.1168/2010 (Ext.P5) passed by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit, which is filed against the respondents, seeking a decree for cancellation of settlement deed executed by the 1 st respondent in favour of the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner had instituted Ext.P1 plaint for the above relief. The plaint was resisted by the defendants, who have filed Ext.P2 written statement. During the cross examination of PW1, - the petitioner - it was deposed that the 1st respondent may have other creditors. In the light of the said statement, the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 application seeking publication of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The OP(C) NO. 799 OF 2017 3 application was resisted by the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P4 counter affidavit. The Court below, after considering Exts.P3 and P4, has dismissed Ext.P3 application by Ext.P5 order. It is assailing Ext.P5 that the original petition is filed.

3. Heard; Sri.Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. N.M.Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The short point that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether Ext.P5 order is sustainable in law or not.

5. Admittedly, Ext.P1 plaint is filed, seeking a decree to cancel the settlement deed executed by the 1 st respondent in favour of the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner alleges that the said document has been executed to defeat the petitioner from realising the OP(C) NO. 799 OF 2017 4 amount that is legitimately due to him. It is in his cross examination that the petitioner deposed that, the 1 st respondent may have 4 -5 creditors. On the basis of the said testimony, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application.

6. Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable, only when there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit.

In the case at hand there is no other person interested in the suit. It is only inter-party dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore, the Order I Rule 8 will not get attracted. More over, if the petitioner wants to ascertain whether the 1 st respondent has other creditors, it is for the petitioner to ascertain the fact from the 1st respondent, directly and then, if so advised, implead such persons also, provided it is permissible in law, for whatever worth it is. I do not find any error or illegality in Ext.P5 order passed by the OP(C) NO. 799 OF 2017 5 Court below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is groundless and is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/17.06.22 OP(C) NO. 799 OF 2017 6 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 799/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.1168/10 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S.1168/10 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF I.A.4823/16 IN O.S.1168/10 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.S.1168/10 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/01/17 IN I.A.4823/16 IN O.S.1168/10 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.