T.M. Kuriyachan v. Shaji @ Shajimon and Others (OP(C) No. 993 of 2022), High Court of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2022-06-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- The original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to agitate Ext.P18; the court below shall consider Ext.P18, with evidence as necessary to establish the allowing of the application, in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. The court below is not directed to consider Ext.P18 before the commencement of trial, and shall decide in light of Francis Assissi v. Sr.Breesiya after trial or upon proper remand.
- Final Disposition
- Original petition dismissed. Without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to agitate Ext.P18; court below to decide Ext.P18 at an appropriate stage in accordance with law.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- T.M. Kuriyachan
Respondents
- Shaji @ Shajimon
- Raju
- Thankachan
- St. Joseph Church, Thirunallur Muri
- Tahsildar Taluk Office, Cherthala
- District Survey Superintendent, Cherthala
- Village Officer, Pallipuram Village Office
- State of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Athul Tom Abraham Mathan
Case Synopsis & Summary
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to compel the Munsiff Court, Cherthala, to consider Exts.P18 and P21 in O.S. No.521 of 2018 on its merits. The petitioner, plaintiff in the suit, seeks decrees for a permanent prohibitory injunction and a mandatory injunction against eight respondents, including individuals, a church, a Tahsildar, and state offices. The matter has a long procedural history of multiple Advocate Commissioner reports (Exts.P9, P12, P17) and remittances by the trial court, with this Court directing expeditious disposal in OP(C) No.1579 of 2021. The petitioner filed Ext.P18 to set aside Ext.P17 and Ext.P21 to remove the case from the trial list, due to delays and alleged discrepancies. The respondents resisted through written statements. The Court noted that Ext.P9 and Ext.P12 reports were remitted and, though Ext.P17 was not sufficient, the petitioner was urged to raise objections at trial. Relying on Francis Assissi v. Sr. Breesiya, the Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct consideration of Ext.P18 before trial. The petition is dismissed, but without prejudice to the petitioner pressing Ext.P18, with the trial court to decide in accordance with law at an appropriate stage, using admissible evidence.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Francis Assissi v. Sr.Breesiya (2017 (1) KLT 1041) – principles for exercising supervisory/interim powers and remitting commission reports; not to fashion tailor-made reports, and to decide remedies at appropriate trial stage
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that Exts.P18 and P21 should be considered by the trial court prior to trial to address the persistent inconsistencies in the Advocate Commissioner reports (Exts.P9, P12, P17). He argues that the Court’s six-month directive was not meant to foreclose relief or proper examination of the commission reports, and that remitting or setting aside reports (as in Ext.P17) is essential for a fair assessment. He asserts that failure to consider Ext.P18 timely would prejudice his case and that the matter warrants supervisory scrutiny under Article 227 to prevent abuse of process and ensure just adjudication, as guided by Francis Assissi v. Sr.Breesiya.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend there is no entitlement to a tailored commission report and that Ext.P18 should not be entertained before trial; delays in the proceedings are to be resolved through the trial process itself. They emphasize that the court should not exercise Article 227 to micromanage the trial timetable and that any grievances regarding commission reports should be addressed at trial or on proper remand/remission procedures if warranted by evidence, rather than by pre-trial intercession in a petition under Article 227.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Francis Assissi v. Sr.Breesiya | 2017 (1) KLT 1041 | Positive | Cited for the principle that supervisory/interim directions under Article 227 should not subvert the trial process and that any remission/remand of commission reports or related orders must be handled in accordance with established principles; the court applies this framework to deny pre-trial interference and allow Ext.P18 to be considered at the appropriate stage. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against T.M. Kuriyachan v. Shaji @ Shajimon and Others (OP(C) No. 993 of 2022), High Court of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.