IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28534 of 2006(V)
1. A.K.SHYAMAPRASAD, AGED 34,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KODOTH KARTHYAYANI AMMA, AGED 78,
... Respondent
2. KODOTH OMANA AMMA, AGED 76,
3. KODOTH SAROJINI AMMA, AGED 72,
4. KODOTH DAKSHAYIN AMMA, AGED 67,
5. KODOTH THAMBAN NAIR, AGED 64,
6. KODOTH BAGEERATHI AMMA, AGED 57,
7. K.MURALEEDHARA NAMBIAR, AGED 61,
8. K.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 55,
9. KODOTH VENUGOPALAN NAMBIAR,
10. JAYARAJ NAMBIAR, AGED 67,
11. K.BHARATHI, AGED 50, W/O.PRABHAKARAN,
12. A.K.VIJAYAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE, AGED 40,
13. A.K.RANJINI, AGED 38,
14. A.K.JYOTHI KUMAR, AGED 33,
15. A.K.SALINI, AGED 31 IN DO. DO.
16. A.K.SHRIJITH, AGED 25, IN DO.DO.
17. SHAILAJA, AGED 36,
18. K.PRAKASH MANIKANDAN, AGED 36,
19. K.GIRISHAN, AGED 32,
20. KODOTH SHANTHA AMMA, AGED 69,
21. SMT.LAKSHMI RAJAMOHAN, AGED 45,
22. MADHU MOHAN RAJ, AGED 27,
23. MANJULA, AGED 25,
24. RANJITH RAJ, AGED 23,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :/ /
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.(C) NO. 28534 of 2006
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dated, this the Ist day of November 2006
JUDGMENT
One of the legal representatives of the first defendant in O.S. No. 3/1980
on the file of the Sub Court, Kasaragod is the Writ Petitioner. The
aforementioned suit was one for removal of the deceased first defendant from
management of the property set apart in common in an earlier partition of the
tarvad. The plaintiff had also prayed for damages from the first defendant for the
alleged acts of mismanagement. The suit was decreed and was confirmed by this
Court in appeal. Pursuant to the appellate decree a scheme is to be framed for
the proper management of the suit property. In the year 1984, a receiver had
been appointed and the receiver has been in management for the past 22 years.
After the appellate decree the plaintiff sought for discharging the receiver. The
plaintiff also filed I.A. 55/2006 for issuing a commission for assessing the damages
due from the Ist defendant . The Writ Petitioner would contend that since the Writ
Petition was served in his mother’s address, he did not get notice of the
application filed by the plaintiff and finally he got notice only when notice by paper
W.P. ) 28534/06 -:2:-
publication was resorted to. The petitioner would allege that on the date notified for
appearance he entered appearance and filed an application for time to file a
counter to I.A. 55/2006 but the court below as per Ext.P4 order dated 1-9-2006
allowed the application for appointment of a Commission holding the view that no
counter has been filed. It is the said order which is assailed in this Writ Petition.
2. The filing of an application for issuing a commission or the order of the
court below appointing an Advocate Commission cannot be taken exception to by
the petitioner since as per the decree the first defendant under whom the petitioner
claims was held liable for damages which is yet to be ascertained. The main
grievance of the petitioner is that certain allegations were made in the application for
commission which if uncontroverted would cause difficulty to the petitioner. These
are all matters which can be considered by the court below and the petitioner can
file counter to the said I.A. hereafter raising his objections to the averments in the
applications. If any of the grievance to be voiced by the petitioner has any
relevance to the assessment of damage by the Advocate Commissioner, petitioner
can very well put the same in black and white in the form of a work memo to the
Advocate Commissioner who will be entitled to consider the same if the same is
relevant for the enquiry.
With this observation this Writ Petition is disposed of without ordering notice
on the respondents.
W.P. ) 28534/06 -:3:-
Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)
ani.
W.P. ) 28534/06 -:4:-