[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vallathol Rubbers Pvt. Ltd vs Mahila Dhyan Vidya Peedu Society on 15 December, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
OP(C) NO. 2978 OF 2019
1
2025:KER:96480
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 2978 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2019 IN IA.NO.41/2019 AND IA
NOS.265/2019, 266/2019 AND 1022/2019 DATED 08.07.2019 IN OS NO.191
OF 2011 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
VALLATHOL RUBBERS PVT. LTD.(SUBSTITUTED)
CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
A.A.SHAJU VARGHESE,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O A.K.ALPHONSE.
*SUBSTITUTED THE NAME OF MR.JOJO T O, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O. LATE OUSEPH UTHUP, THE PRESENT MANAGING DIRECTOR
OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY INSTEAD OF MR.SHAJU VARGHESE
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2024 IN IA.NO.1/2023
BY ADVS.
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
SRI.P.SANJAY
RESPONDENT:
MAHILA DHYAN VIDYA PEEDU SOCIETY
A-14,MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MADHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI,PIN-110 001,
REP.BY POA HOLDER T.K.VINAYAGOPAL,
S/O.LATE KARUNAKARA POTHUVALL,'SREE NILAYAM',
P.OVELLINEZHI,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SMT.CHITHRA S.BABU
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.12.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 2978 OF 2019
2
2025:KER:96480
T.R.RAVI.J
------------------------------------
OP(C) No.2978 of 2019
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P14
order whereby an application for extension of time to produce
the original of the power of attorney executed in favour of one
Vinayagopal has been allowed by the Court below. The
contention of the petitioner is that the Court had by Ext.P5
order granted six days time to cure the defects. The six days
time expired on 21.01.2019. It is submitted that the power of
attorney had not been produced by then and the defect was
not cured as directed, which would necessitate the rejection of
the plaint since it has been signed by a person who is not
authorised.
2. Admittedly, Exts.P9 and P10 petitions had been filed
before the expiry of the time granted by the Court in Ext.P5.
This Court had called for a report from the trial court regarding
the production of the original power of attorney. A report has
OP(C) NO. 2978 OF 2019
2025:KER:96480
been received which says that the original of the power of
attorney was produced on 24.01.2019. The plaintiffs had filed
IA.Nos.265 and 266 of 2019 for production of documents and
for enlargement of time. The applications have admittedly
been filed on 21.01.2019.
3. The contention of the respondents is that the Court
which has fixed the time for doing a particular act had an
inherent power to extend the said period. It is pointed out that
the impugned judgment refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nashik Municipal Corporation vs. M/s.
R.M.Bhandari [AIR 2016 SC 1090], Johri Singh vs. Sukh
Pal Singh [AIR 1989 SC 2073] and the judgment of this
Court in Sakkeer Hussain vs. Sainabha V.P. and another
[2018 KHC 4627] to hold that power is available with the
Court to extend the time initially fixed. I do not find anything
wrong with the said findings. Court had the power to extend
the time. This is a case where, it can be seen from the power
of attorney produced, that the same had been executed on
21.01.2019, within the six days granted by the Court and the
OP(C) NO. 2978 OF 2019
2025:KER:96480
Court has noticed the fact that the power of attorney was
executed in New Delhi and sufficient time was necessary for
production of the same before the Court. The Court even found
that the initial time fixed as six days cannot be stated to be
reasonable in the circumstances.
4. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P14
order. The original petition fails and is dismissed. All other
issues are to be decided during the trial.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
sn
OP(C) NO. 2978 OF 2019
2025:KER:96480
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 2978 OF 2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.191/2011 OF
BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR DATED 07.02.2011
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AS DEFENDANT IS THE SUIT IN
O.S.NO.191/2011 OF BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR
DATED 29.06.2011
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION,IN I.A.41/2019 IN
O.S.191/2011 OF BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR
DATED 04.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN I.A.NO.41/2019 IN
O.S.191/2011 OF BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR
DATED 05.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.41/2019 IN O.S.191/2011 AS
BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR DATED 15.01.2019
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
31.01.2011
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT LIST OF BEFORE THE SUB
COURT,THRISSUR DATED 19.01.2019
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.191/2011 OF
BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.265/2019 IN O.S.191/2011
OF BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR DATED 21.01.2019
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.266/2019 IN
O.S.NO.191/2011 BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR
DATED 21.01.2019
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OP(C)NO.638/2019
DATED 27.02.2019
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.1022/2019 IN O.S.NO.191/2011
OF BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR DATED 13.03.2019
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.1022/2019 IN O.S.NO.191/2011
OF BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR DATED 23.03.2019
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN
I.A.NOS.265/2019,266/2019 AND 1022/2019 IN
O.S.NO.191/2011 DATED 08.07.2019.
