WP(C) No. 34083 of 2006 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) RESPONDENTS: -------------
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI.
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NEW DELHI.
MR.P.N. VITTAL DAS, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, MADRAS.
MR.K.N. RAGHAVAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, 19/1069 A, TALI, CALICUT.
MR.C. MITRAPRASAD, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN.
MR.SAYED MOHAMMED, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN.
MR.RAMMURTHY, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN.
MRS.G. GOMATHI, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN. BY // THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) .NO. 34083 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated 21st December 2006 JUDGMENT Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.57/01 on the file of Sub court, Thiruvalla. Case of petitioner was that Ext.P1 application was filed by defendants in the suit for joint trial of the suit with O.S.63/00 and 55/01 and 47/04. Petitioner filed objection to Ext.P1 application and no order was passed in Ext.P1. It is contended that still learned Munsiff has posted all the cases together with a direction to to treat O.S.63/00 as the leading case.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to direct Sub court, Thiruvalla to try O.S.57/01 separately. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Central Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 were heard.
3. If there is no order for joint trial learned Sub Judge cannot try all the suits together or treat O.S.63/00 as the main case. If learned Sub Judge has not passed any order in Ext.P2 application before 2 directing joint trial, Sub Judge has to pass appropriate order after hearing the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that suit is listed in the special list in January and therefore learned Sub Judge may be directed to dispose I.A expeditiously. If the suit is in the special list and trial court finds that joint trial is not necessary there is no necessity to remove the suit from the special list or adjourn the suit. Court has to try the suits separately. If joint trial is necessary then also court can proceed with the trial Writ petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 21 Dec 2006. The bench was M SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.