Kerala High Court
Plavilakandathil Thomas Mathew @ ... vs Plavilakandathil Vargise on 30 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943
OP(C).No.1397 OF 2018(O)
PETITIONER:
PLAVILAKANDATHIL THOMAS MATHEW @ MATHAI
AGED 78 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 81/- BARDONIA ROAD,
BARDONIA NEWYORK 10954 USA REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER VARGHEESE K. DANIEL,
AGED 70 YEARS,
KANDATHIL HOUSE BMRA 101C- EDAPPALLY.P.O.,
KOCHI-24.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.L.RAM MOHAN
SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC
RESPONDENTS:
1 PLAVILAKANDATHIL VARGISE
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, S/O. LATE THOMAS,
POTHUKAL VILLAGE,
BOOTHATANAM P.O.,
NILAMBOOR AMSOM,
MALALPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 329.
2 GOPINATH
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. GOVIDA PANICKER,
SAI GANGA HOUSE NO:56,
NARUKARA VILLAGE, WARD NO:3 MANJERI P.O.,
ERANADU TALUK-676 122.
3 PARUNGABUZHI KUNNATH BIJU
AGED 40 YEARS, BALAKRISHNAN,
HOUSE NO: 197 THIRUVALI VILLAGE,
THIRUVALI P.O., ERANADU TALUK- 679 348.
4 P.V. THOMAS
AGED 54 YEARS,
PLAVILAKANDATHIL HOUSE,
POTHUKAL VILLAGE,
BHOOTHATANAM P.O.,
NILAMBOOR AMSOM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329.
OP(C).No.1397 OF 2018
2
5 ANNAMMA VARGHESE
AGED 83 YEARS, W/O. P.T. VARGHEESE,
POTHUKAL VILLAGE, BHOOTHATANAM P.O.,
NILAMBOOR AMSOM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679329.
6 ROSHAN V PHILIP
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. P.V.THOMAS, POTHUKAL VILLAGE,
BHOOTHATANAM P.O., NILAMBOOR AMSOM MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT- 679329.
7 MARIYAMMA
AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. SIMON MELEDATHU VEETIL ANAKALLU
UPPADA P.O., POTHUKAL AMSOM,
NILAMBUR TALUK- 679 327.
8 PONNAMMA ALEXANDER
AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. ALEXANDER KARAKUDIYIL VEETTILL
KULAKANDAM P.O.,
NILAMBUR AMSOM NILAMBUR TALUK- 679329.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No.1397 OF 2018
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of March 2021
The sole plaintiff in O.S.No.2/2014 on the file of
Subordinate Judges Court, Manjeri, is the petitioner herein.
Being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 01.06.2018 passed by
the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri, rejecting his application for
setting aside the commission report on plan, he has filed this
O.P.
2. The suit was filed by him for declaration and other
relifes. Commission report and plan were filed in the suit.
According to the petitioner, the commission failed to identify
the properties obtained by him as per title deeds and mark
them in the plan. It is also pointed out that the alleged
encroachment portion was not shown in the plan. Even though
these objections were raised before the court below, they were
not considered while passing Exhibit P5 order.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even
though notices were served on the respondents, they did not
appear seeking to sustain the order. The impugned order
OP(C).No.1397 OF 2018
shows that the court below did not apply its mind and consider
the objections raised by the petitioner. The major reason for
dismissing the application is that the suit was already included
in the special list for trial. I am of the opinion that the court
below has not passed a considered order and therefore it
requires to be set aside.
In the result O.P is allowed, setting aside the
impugned order dated 01.06.2018 and the court below is
directed to consider and decide I.A.No.431/18 after hearing
parties and in accordance with law. The suit being of the year
2014, there shall be direction to the court below to dispose of
the suit finally within a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
SMF
OP(C).No.1397 OF 2018
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO:
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO: 430/18
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO: 431/18
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
01.06.2018 IN IA NO'S 430/18 & 431/18.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
