High Court Kerala High Court

Heeralal Pananchand vs Sait Anandji Kalyanji Jain Temple … on 2 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Heeralal Pananchand vs Sait Anandji Kalyanji Jain Temple … on 2 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6563 of 2010(O)


1. HEERALAL PANANCHAND, AGED 70 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SAIT ANANDJI KALYANJI JAIN TEMPLE TRUST,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :02/03/2010

 O R D E R
                      P. BHAVADASAN, J.
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                   W.P.(C) No. 6563 of 2010
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
            Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

In this petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India the petitioner seeks for a direction to

the Munsiff Court-I (A), Kozhikode to issue carbon copy of

the order in I.A. No.1007 of 2010 dated 27-2-2010 to the

petitioner. It is also prayed for a direction to the Munsiff’s

Court-I(A), Kozhikode to adjourn the trial of O.S. No.517 of

2009 till the carbon copy of the order is issued.

2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S. No.517 of

2009 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court-I(A), Kozhikode. The

suit is filed for eviction of the petitioner from the plaint

schedule building owned by the respondent and also for

damages.

3. The petitioner claims that he is also a member of

the Trust. He entered appearance and filed his objections.

The petitioner filed I.A. No.1007 of 2010 to grant leave to

serve the interrogatories on the plaintiffs and direct them to

answer the interrogatories. That was being repeatedly

W.P.(C) No. 6563/10 2

adjourned and finally disposed of on 27-2-2010. The

grievance of the petitioner is that though he has applied for

a carbon copy of the order, that is not issued so far. In the

meanwhile, the suit is listed for trial. According to the

petitioner, if the suit is tried without giving an opportunity

to him to challenge the order, he will be put to irreparable

injury and hardship.

4. In the light of the order proposes to be passed, it is

not necessary to issue notice to the respondent.

5. The petitioner wants to challenge the order by

which his application was dismissed. He has also applied for

a carbon copy of the order. So far it has not been issued.

6. Hence, there will be a direction to the Munsiff’s

Court-I (A), Kozhikode to issue a carbon copy of the order in

I.A. No.1007 of 2010 as early as possible, at any rate within

one week from today. Till then, there will be a stay of the

trial of the suit.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

mn.