V THRIVENKIDAM Vs. R VEERESH KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R VEERESH KUMAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The first defendant in O.S. 205/1990 on the file of the Prl. Sub Court, Alappuzha is the petitioner in all these revision petitions.
(2.) O.S. 205/1990 was fled by the plaintiff for partition claiming 1/9 share of plaint schedule items A to C. The allegation is that it is a joint family property and the plaintiff is entitled to get he share. The third defendant in the said suit who is the younger brother of the plaintiff filed a separate suit as O.S. 207/1990 claiming that he is also entitled to 1/9 share in the property. I.A. 589/1998 was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 205/1990 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to consolidate O.S. 207/1990 along with O.S. 205/1990. I.A. 590 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 207/1990 claiming the same relief. The first defendant in these suits filed I.A. 1309/1998 in O.S. 207/1990 for stay of that suit till the disposal of O.S. 205/1990 under Section 10 of the C.P.C. All these three applications were disposed of by a common order. The court below allowed the applications for consolidation filed by the plaintiffs in the respective suits and dismissed the application filed by the first defendant seeking stay of O.S. 207/1990. Aggrieved thereby, these three revision petitions are filed by the first defendant.
The questions that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the civil revision petitions are maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(2) Assuming it is maintainable, whether the order passed by the court below is liable to be revised in exercise of the powers vested in this court under Section 115 of the C.P.C and whether there is any illegality committed by the court below in dismissing the application filed by the first defendant for stay of O.S. 207/1990
(3.) Even though the applications for consolidation and the application for stay were filed at the interim stage of the suit, that has got the nature of a final disposal in that proceeding in so far as the matter becomes final on the question as to whether the latter suit should be stayed or not. Hence I find that these revision petitions cannot be rejected on the ground of non-maintainability.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.