BIJOY Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is it necessary that a counter-claim be headed by a cause title is the short point that arises for consideration in this original petition?

(2.) The petitioner's case in the original petition is that he is the 8th defendant in O.S. No.121/2016, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Varkala. The respondents 1 to 20 are the plaintiffs, and the respondents 21 to 28 are the defendants in the suit. The suit is filed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner from trespassing into the Mambazhamoola Ganapathi Temple. The petitioner and the other defendants have raised a counter-claim. As per Exhibit P2 daily status report, the trial court had partly decreed the suit and counter-claim. The petitioner had applied for the judgment and decree. Surprisingly, Exhibit P3 notice was issued to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, informing him that the office was unable to prepare the judgment and decree due to the absence of the cause title in the counter-claim. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed Exhibit P5 application to correct the cause title in the counter-claim. The application was opposed by the third respondent. The court below did not pass any orders on the application and has not issued the judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay on the part of the court below in issuing the certified copy of the judgment and decree, this original petition is filed.

(3.) Heard, Sri. S.K.Adhithyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.