V.G. Udayakumar vs M/S Royal Castle Tiknar Aprtment Owners ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8923 Ker

Kerala High Court

V.G. Udayakumar vs M/S Royal Castle Tiknar Aprtment Owners ... on 27 March, 2024

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                     OP(C) NO. 185 OF 2024
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2024 IN OS NO.213 OF
          2019 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 1, 2 & 4:

    1     V.G. UDAYAKUMAR
          AGED 60 YEARS, S/O GOVINDA SHENOI,
          RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 4C,
          ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR BUILDING,
          DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD,
          ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 682035
    2     JOY C.G
          AGED 69 YEARS, LATE C.P. GEORGE,
          RESIDING AT FLAT 5D,
          ROYAL CASTLE TINKAR BUILDING,
          DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
    3     V. SANTHARAM
          AGED 64 YEARS, S/O A.V. KAMATH,
          RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4C,
          ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR BUILDING,
          DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035

         BY ADVS.
         AMBILY PREMKUMAR
         K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS & PLAINTIFF NO.3:

    1    M/S ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR APRTMENT
         OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
         REG.NO. ER 139/2012,
         DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD, ERNAKULAM ,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 682035
    2    BABU XAVIER
         FLAT NO.8 H & I, ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR BUILDING ,
         DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
 O.P.(C) No. 185/2024


                                ..2..


      3      SINDHU
             W/O NARAYANAKUTTY, FLAT NO. 9 PH,
             ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR BUILDING,
             DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD,
             ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
      4      K. ABDUL LATHEEF
             S/O KASSIM, FLAT NO. 3C,
             ROYAL CASTLE TIKNAR BUILDING,
             DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD,
             ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035

             BY ADVS.
             George Mathew KARAMAYIL
             GEORGE THOMAS M M
             SABIR N.S
             SUNIL KUMAR A.G(K/000741/2003)
             MATHEW K.T.(K/001047/2018)
             GEORGE K.V.(K/000060/2019)
             STEPHY K REGI(K/001025/2020)
             MEDHA B.S.(K/001625/2023)

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C) No. 185/2024


                                         ..3..


                              JUDGMENT

Ext.P10 and P11 orders passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam

(for short, 'the trial court') are under challenge in this original petition.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4. The respondents are

the defendants and plaintiff No.3. The suit is one for setting asiding two

documents and for a permanent prohibitory injunction. After the suit was

listed for trial, the plaintiff preferred two applications, Exts.P8 and P9, for

impleading additional 4th defendant and for amending the plaint. The trial

court after hearing both sides dismissed those applications as per Exts.P10

and P11 orders. It is challenging those orders, the plaintiffs approached this

Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as

well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. I went through Exts.P10 and P11 orders. Both of them are not

speaking orders. In Ext.P10 the trial Court simply stated that there is no need

at all to implead the proposed defendant. No reason has been stated. The

question whether the proposed defendant is a necessary party has not been

considered at all. So also in Ext.P11 order, the amendment application was

dismissed without considering it on merits. Whether the amendment is

necessary or not has not been considered at all. In short, the trial court

..4..

dismissed both applications without going into the merits of those

applications, probably for the reason that the suit had already been listed. The

delay alone is not at all a ground to dismiss the applications. Those have to be

considered on merits.

5. For these reasons, without going into the merits of Exts.P8 and

P9 applications, Exts.P10 and P11 are set aside. The trial court is directed to

dispose Exts.P8 and P9 on merits in accordance with law, after hearing both

sides, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment

The O.P.(C) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA

..5..

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 185/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FLED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.S.NO. 778 OF 2017 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN, O.S.NO. 778 OF 2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 5 TO 7 (PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 AND 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN) IN O.S.NO. 778 OF

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 7 OF 2024 FILED BY PETITIONERS HEREIN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 9 OF 2024 IN O.S.NO.

213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 7 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 9 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO. 213 OF 2019