Annamma Mohan vs Samuel Ommen @ Thankachan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5274 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

                         OP(C).No.920 OF 2020

 (OS 413/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT ,PATHANAMTHITTA)

                              ---------



PETITIONERS:

      1        ANNAMMA MOHAN,
               AGED 62 YEARS
               W/O. MOHAN MATHEW,
               KADAVIL HOUSE,
               PALAMAROOR MURI,
               KUMBAZHA P.O,
               PATHANAMTHITTA

      2        JEJI MATHEW,
               S/O. K.M MATHEW,
               KADAVIL HOUSE,
               PALAMAROOR MURI,
               KUMBAZHA P.O,
               PATHANAMTHITTA

      3        MOHAN MATHEW,
               S/O. K.M MATHEW,
               KADAVIL HOUSE,
               PALAMAROOR MURI,
               KUMBAZHA P.O,
               PATHANAMTHITTA

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
               SMT.T.V.NEEMA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        SAMUEL OMMEN @ THANKACHAN,
               AGED 63 YEARS
               AYIRIYIL HOUSE,
               PALAMAROOR MURI,
               KUMBAZHA P.O,
               PATHANAMTHITTA 689 653
       2     REJI ONNOONNY,
            NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE,
            PALAMAROOR MURI,
            KUMBAZHA P.O,
            PATHANAMTHITTA 689 653

      3     SUDARSANAN NAIR,
            THAZHEPARAYIL HOUSE,
            PALAMAROOR MURI,
            KUMBAZHA P.O,
            PATHANAMTHITTA 689 653

      4     DEVAKI AMMA,
            VALIYA VEETTIL HOUSE,
            PALAMAROOR MURI, KUMBAZHA P.O,
            PATHANAMTHITTA 689 653


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
         ==================
                O. P. (C) No.920 of 2020
         ==================
        Dated this the 12th day of February, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

While it is true that the defendants filed

their written statement belatedly and much beyond

the time as stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court on

being convinced of the circumstances, considered it

appropriate to accept the written statement and to

have the suit disposed of on contest. The Apex

Court, in Desh Raj v. Balkishan (2020) 2 SCC 708

has held that though the time limit has been

incorporated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC with an

objective, the same is not mandatory in nature

though grant of time is not a matter of course. O. P. (C) No.920 of 2020

I do not find any perversity with the

discretion exercised by the trial court to accept

the written statement, The order impugned warrants

no interference.

Original petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.920 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OS 413/2010 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 21-10-2010

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 IN OS 413/2010 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 27-10-2011

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON 6-1-2012 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 1972/2011 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN OS 413/2010 DATED 27-10-2011

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA 806/20199

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OBJECTION FILED BY DEFENDANTS TO THE I.A 806/2019 DATED 9-8-2019

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 806/2019 DATED 2-3-2020 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

--------