OPC 115-2023 - Mary Thomas v. Salomi George

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 12TH MAGHA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 115 OF 2023
IN I.A.NO.15/2022 IN OS 394/2016 OF MUNSIFF

COURT ,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
MARY THOMAS
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O LATE MR. THOMAS JOHN
THARAYILETHU HOUSE, MUTTATHUKONAM MURI, CHENNERKKARA
P.O, CHENNERKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN – 689647
BY ADVS. GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL

O.K.DEEPAMOL
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 9/COUNTER CLAIM PLAINTIFFS:
1 SALOMY GEORGE
AGED 72 YEARS, W/O JOHN GEORGE,
FLAT NO.4-D, ELEGANT APARTMENT, INDIRA NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK
COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682020
2 AJAY GEORGE
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O JOHN GEORGE,
3 ANIL GEORGE
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O JOHN GEORGE
4 ANGELA GEORGE
AGED 30 YEARS, D/O JOHN GEORGE
5 RAJAN JOHN
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O JOHN
TC 10/99/2, MANNANTHALA,
O.P.(C)No.115/2023
-:2:-
POUDIKONAM ROAD, NALANCHIRA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 695015
6 ASHA RAJAN
AGED 58 YEARS, W/O RAJAN JOHN
TC 10/99/2, MANNANTHALA, POUDIKONAM ROAD, NALANCHIRA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695015
7 JOJO THOMAS
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O LATE THOMAS JOHN,
EDAPPALLIMANNIL THARAYILETHU VEEDU, MUTTATHUKONAM
MURI, CHENNERKKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN – 689647
8 JIJO THOMAS
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O LATE THOMAS JOHN
9 JULIE THOMAS
AGED 27 YEARS
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.115/2023
-:3:-
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2023
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed to direct the Court of
the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta, to consider and dispose of
I.A.Nos.15 & 16/2022 (Exts P5 & P6) in
O.S.No.394/2016 within a time frame.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2023
passed by this Court, the learned Munsiff, by
communication dated 24.01.2023, has informed this
Court that the suit is filed for recovery of possession.
This Court, by judgment in O.P.(C)No.537/2021, has
already directed the suit to be disposed of within eight
months. However, the suit could not be disposed
within the time frame for more reasons than one. The
petitioner had filed an application to remove the suit
from the list and later the suit was dismissed for
default. Now, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.15/2022 to
restore the suit and I.A.No.16/2022 to condone the

O.P.(C)No.115/2023
-:4:-
delay in filing I.A.No.15/2022. The court below would
dispose of the applications within one month.
3. Heard; Sri. George Abraham Pachayil, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even
though notice of this original petition has been served
on the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
before the court below, there is no appearance for
them.
In the light of the pleadings and materials on
record and after perusing the communication of the
learned Munsiff, in exercise of the supervisory powers
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, I direct the Court of the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta,
to consider and dispose of I.A.Nos.15 & 16/2022 in
O.S.No.394/2016, in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period
of one month from today. If the suit is restored back to
file, the court below shall adhere to the time frame

O.P.(C)No.115/2023
-:5:-
fixed by this Court in O.P.(C)No.537/2021
The original petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST/01.02.23 //True copy/ /// True copy//
P.A.To Judgeudge
O.P.(C)No.115/2023
-:6:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P 1 PLAINT IN O.S 394/2016 IN THE HON'BLE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA, THE
ORIGINAL PLAINT IS DATED 24/09/2016. PLAINT
INCORPORATED WITH AMENDMENTS MADE IS
PRODUCED.
EXHIBIT P 2 WRITTEN STATEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM FILED

BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE SUIT O.S
394/2016, DATED 19/07/2018
EXHIBIT P 3 WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER

TO THE COUNTER CLAIM OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4,
DATED 08/03/2022
EXHIBIT P 4 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.09/2022, FILED BY

THE PETITIONER IN OS 394/2016 TO REMOVE THE
CASE FROM THE LIST, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY
THE HON'BLE COURT. DATED 07/11/2022.
EXHIBIT P 5 I.A 15/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER

ORDER IX RULE 0 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT FOR DEFAULT AND TO
RESTORE THE SUIT TO FILE, DATED 14/12/2022.
EXHIBIT P 6 I.A 16/2022, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S

394/2016 UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION
ACT TO CONDONE A DELAY OF 7 DAYS IN FILING
THE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE
SUIT, DATED 14/12/2022
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

OPC 115-2023 - Mary Thomas v. Salomi George

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPC 115-2023 - Mary Thomas v. Salomi George

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPC 115-2023 - Mary Thomas v. Salomi George

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

IN I.A.NO.15/2022 IN OS 394/2016 OF MUNSIFF

BY ADVS. GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 9/COUNTER CLAIM PLAINTIFFS:

POUDIKONAM ROAD, NALANCHIRA,

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2023

The original petition is filed to direct the Court of

the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta, to consider and dispose of

I.A.Nos.15 & 16/2022 (Exts P5 & P6) in

O.S.No.394/2016 within a time frame.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2023

passed by this Court, the learned Munsiff, by

communication dated 24.01.2023, has informed this

Court that the suit is filed for recovery of possession.

This Court, by judgment in O.P.(C)No.537/2021, has

already directed the suit to be disposed of within eight

months. However, the suit could not be disposed

petitioner had filed an application to remove the suit

default. Now, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.15/2022 to

restore the suit and I.A.No.16/2022 to condone the

delay in filing I.A.No.15/2022. The court below would

dispose of the applications within one month.

3. Heard; Sri. George Abraham Pachayil, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even

though notice of this original petition has been served

on the learned counsel appearing for the respondents

before the court below, there is no appearance for

In the light of the pleadings and materials on

record and after perusing the communication of the

learned Munsiff, in exercise of the supervisory powers

of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, I direct the Court of the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta,

to consider and dispose of I.A.Nos.15 & 16/2022 in

O.S.No.394/2016, in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period

of one month from today. If the suit is restored back to

file, the court below shall adhere to the time frame

fixed by this Court in O.P.(C)No.537/2021

The original petition is ordered accordingly.

DST/01.02.23 //True copy/ /// True copy//

EXHIBIT P 2 WRITTEN STATEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM FILED

EXHIBIT P 3 WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P 4 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.09/2022, FILED BY

EXHIBIT P 5 I.A 15/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER

EXHIBIT P 6 I.A 16/2022, FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

You might also like