Joseph vs Holy Family Church on 24 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9990 of 2010(O)


1. JOSEPH, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. VARUTHU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MINI ANTONY JOLLY, AGED 36 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. HOLY FAMILY CHURCH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ANTONY KOPPANDISSERY,

3. ANTONY, S/O. XAVIER, AGED ABOUT 37,

4. SIMON, S/O. CHOWRY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

5. ROY, S/O. RAPPO, AGED ABOUT 47,

6. JIMSON, S/O. JAIMY, AGED ABOUT 32,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :24/03/2010

 O R D E R
                        P. BHAVADASAN, J.
             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    W.P.(C). No. 9990 of 2010
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010.

                               JUDGMENT

The limited prayer in this petition filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for a direction to

the 2nd Additional Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam to take up

Exts.P3 and P4 and dispose them of on merits at the

earliest.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. 750

of 2007 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff’s Court,

Ernakulam. The suit was one for prohibitory injunction.

Plaint schedule property has an extent of 0.750 cents

comprised in Sy. No.333/13 with a building therein. The

petitioners are in possession of the same. The allegation

was that the defendants in the suit were trying to evict

them from the property and therefore the suit was laid.

3. It is pointed out that the suit was included

in the special list. The suit was dismissed for default. It

WPC.9990/10 2

is contended that the petitioners were under the bonafide

belief that the matter would be settled. Subsequently the

petitioners have filed an application for restoration of the

suit with a petition to condone the delay in fling the petition

for restoration. Those applications are kept pending and the

respondents are taking steps to dispossess the petitioners.

It is prayed that there may be a direction to dispose of the

applications at the earliest.

4. The request seems to be quite reasonable.

There is no reason as to why the court below should not take

up Exts.P2 and P3 and dispose them of so as to enable the

petitioners to have the matter decided on merits.

In the result, there will be a direction to the 2nd

Additional Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam to take up Exts.P3 and

P4 and dispose them of as early as possible at any rate

before vacation.

P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE

sb.