IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 1251 of 2010(O)
1. REGAL ANTONY, DAUGHTER OF ROSALIN
... Petitioner
2. ROSALINE RICHARD, DAUTHTER OF
Vs
1. DEVARAJAN, SON OF RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SURESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
O.P(Civil). NOs. 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254, OF 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the
order I propose to pass which does not in any way affect right of
respondent.
2. Respondents filed 4 suits O.S Nos. 341 of 2006 and 347
of 2006 for enforcement of alleged agreement of sale and
O.S.Nos 372 of 2007 and 444 of 2007 for a decree for prohibitory
injunction all concerning the same property. The suits were
disposed of on 30.10.2010. According to the petitioners,
judgment was not pronounced in open court as required but
petitioners learned from the A Diary the same day that the suits
were disposed of. Within one hour the same day, petitioners filed
applications for issue of carbon copy of judgment. Those
applications were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge vide
Ext.P9, order in these petitions. The reason stated is that there
was no oral application for issue of carbon copy as required under
Rule 239 (3) of Civil Rules of Practice at the time of passing the
order. Learned counsel contends that since judgment was not
pronounced in open court and it was only from A Diary that
petitioners learned disposal of the suit no oral request could be
O.P(Civil). NOs. 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254/2010 2
made at the time of pronouncement of the judgment but, within
an hour therefrom, the same day, applications were preferredfor
the issue of carbon copy.
3. Under Rule 239(3) of Civil Rules of Practice, any party to
the proceeding may immediately after the judgment or order is
pronounced apply orally to the court for a carbon copy or photo
copy thereto. In the present case immediately after
pronouncement of judgment, petitioners have filed applications
for the issue of carbon copy. That in my view is sufficient
compliance with Rule 239(3) of the Rules referred above. In that
view of matter, learned Sub Judge was not correct in dismissing
the applications.
Resultantly, these petitions are allowed and I.A No. 6472 of
2010 (O.S No.341 of 2006), I.A No.6470 of 2010 (O.S.347 of
2006), I.A No. 6469 of 2010 (O.S.372 of 2007) and I.A. No. 6471
of 2010 ( O.S.No.444 of 2007) of the court of Additional Sub
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram will stand allowed. Learned Sub Judge
is directed to issue carbon copy of judgments as applied vide
said applications as early as possible.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
O.P(Civil). NOs. 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254/2010 3
mns