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
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
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
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
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.
