Kerala High Court
Good Shepperd Education And Charitable ... vs T.V.Varghese on 24 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
Thursday, the 24th day of October 2024 / 2nd Karthika, 1946
IA.NO.1/2024 IN OP(C) NO. 708 OF 2024
IA 2029/2018 IN OS 285/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
APPLICANT/PETITIONER:
GOOD SHEPPERD EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, AGED 69 YEARS GOOD
SHEPPERD EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, REP. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE
GEORGE PHILIP, KALATHIKKAL, S/O K.P. GEORGE, KALARIKKAL HOUSE,
CHUNGATHRARA AMSOM, PALUNDA DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT. PIN - 679334
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. T.V.VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O T.V. MATHAI VARGHESE, THAIVECHATHIL
HOUSE, PERUMKULAM, EDAKKARA AMSOM, DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679331
2. N.V.BABY, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O LUKKAVARKI, NAMBADANKUNNEL HOUSE,
MUPPINI, EDAKKARA AMSOM, DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
, PIN - 679331
3. ELIYAMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O N.V.BABY, NAMBADANKUNNEL HOUSE,
MUPPINI, EDAKKARA AMSOM, DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679331
4. JAMES VARGHESE, AGED 64 YEARS, VELUTHAMODAYIL HOUSE, MAMPOYIL,
CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. , PIN
- 679334
5. BIJU V JAMES, AGED 34 YEARS, VELUTHAMODAYIL HOUSE, MAMPOYIL,
CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN
- 679334
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased t o enlarge the time
fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment dated 22.3.2024 by a period of
3 months from 21-11-24.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this court's judgement
dated 22.03.2024, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN,
SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH M/S. K.SUJAI SATHIAN, DEEPA NARAYANAN, PREETHI.
P.V., M.V.BALAGOPAL & MARY LIYA SABU, Advocates for the petitioners and
Sri. UK Devidas, advocate for respondents, the court passed the following:
(P.T.O)
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
O.P.(C.) No.708 of 2024
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2024
ORDER
This is an application for extension of time fixed by this
Court as per judgment dated 22.03.2024 in O.P.(C.) No.708
of 2024, which directed the learned Munsiff to try and
dispose of the suit O.S. No.285/2016 within a period of eight
months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.
2. Heard Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, learned Senior
Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Neeraj Krishnakumar on
behalf of the petitioner; and Sri.U.K.Devidas, on behalf of the
respondents.
3. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that,
pursuant to the directions of this Court, the suit was
scheduled for trial on 01.08.2024. The petitioner could reach
India only on 30.07.2024. He appeared before the Court on
01.08.2024 and sought for more time for production of
certain documents. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to
16.08.2024. On that date also, the petitioner could not
produce the documents and an interim application was
filed to remove the suit from the list. The same was not
acceded to and the suit was dismissed, for default. On
22.08.2024, the petitioner made an application for
restoration. However, the same was not considered
forthwith and it was adjourned to 15.11.2024. An Original
Petition was filed before this Court challenging that action
and seeking for an early disposal of the restoration
petition. A C.M.A. arising from an interim order in the suit
was sought to be kept in abeyance till then. In that
Original Petition, an order has been passed by a learned
Single Judge, deferring the hearing in C.M.A. No.18/2022
for a period of two weeks, which was subsequently
extended till 30.10.2024. Now, the apprehension raised by
the learned Senior Counsel is that the period stipulated by
this Court for disposal of the suit, by virtue of the
judgment in O.P.(C.) No.708/2024, expires on 21.11.2024,
whereas, the restoration petition is posted to 15.11.2024.
Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, after
considering the restoration petition, the suit cannot be
disposed of within the time stipulated. On such premise,
learned Senior seeks extension of time.
4. In answer to the above submissions, learned
counsel for the respondents would submit that the
respondents are not standing in the way of extension of
time, but would also hasten to add that the petitioner,
who is ordinarily residing in U.S.A, may not be in a position
to co-operate and to complete the proceedings in the suit,
in which case, it may amount to harassment of the
defendants.
5. This Court also takes into account a request
letter made by the Additional District Judge, Manjeri
seeking to lift the time stipulation for disposal of the
C.M.A, until the order of stay in the subsequent Original
Petition, O.P.(C.) No.2060/2024, is vacated.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also, in view of the fact that the
suit, as well as C.M.A., is now the subject matter of O.P.(C.)
No.2060/2024 in the consideration of the Court dealing
with matters under Article 227 of the Constitution, the
time stipulations made by this Court in O.P.(C.)
No.708/2024 in disposing the C.M.A., as also, in disposing
the suit, has to be done away with. It is so done. It is
clarified that both the Courts, which are in seisin of the
C.M.A., as also the suit, will be bound by the time
stipulations if any made, in O.P.(C.) No.2060/2024.
I.A. No.1 of 2024 is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SKP/24-10
24-10-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
