Ettumanoor Municipality vs M/S Kerala Agro Industries ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9119 Ker

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                              PRESENT
                             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

                       Wednesday, the 27th day of July 2022 / 5th Sravana, 1944
                                 IA.NO.2/2020 IN RSA NO. 381 OF 2020
                            OS 222/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR
                      AS 103/2017 OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

       ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,
       KOTTAYAM-686 631.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

       M/S KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
       KISSAN JYOTHI FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHIEF
       ENGINEER, M/S. KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.

       Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High
Court be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned decree and judgment dated 28.01.2019 in
AS.NO.103 of 2017 of the Additional District-V,Kottayam, pending final disposal of the above regular
second appeal, to meet the ends of justice.
       This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the affidavit filed in
support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.SIBY CHENAPPADY Advocate for the
petitioner and of SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN,
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SRI.RAJA KANNAN, SRI.R.CHETHAN KRISHNA
Advocates for the respondent, the court passed the following:
                       M.R.ANITHA, J.
          ----------------------------------------
                 R.S.A. No.381 of 2020
           -----------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022

                           ORDER

Admit.

Issue notice to the respondent.

Call for lower court records.

Substantial questions of law is formulated as follows:

(a) In a suit for recovery of balance amount due under a contract, where the contractual amount as well as the amounts already received under the contract has not been pleaded and proved, can the court grant a decree of recovery of balance amount allegedly due?

(b) Whether a mere communication that the demands made by the plaintiff will be considered at a later date, without accepting or denying the genuineness of the demand, would amount to an acknowledgment as contemplated under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

(c) Whether there was any reciprocal promise/contract to be performed by the plaintiff as alleged by the defendant?

R.S.A. No.381 of 2020

I.A. No.2 of 2020 Heard.

There will be an interim stay of the operation of the impugned

judgment and decree dated 28.1.2019 in A.S. No.103/2017 on the

file of Additional District Court-V, Kottayam, for a period of three

months.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

SMF

27-07-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar