MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Trial Court Should Not Proceed Without Resolving Surveyor Application; Proper Property Identification Is Indispensable for Fair Adjudication: Kerala High Court

09 December 2024 8:02 PM

By: sayum


The High Court of Kerala has set aside an order from the Munsiff Court, Adoor, directing the lower court to first resolve an interlocutory application concerning the appointment of a new surveyor before continuing with the trial. The judgment, delivered by Honorable Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, underscores the importance of addressing key procedural applications to ensure a fair trial in property disputes.

The case involves a dispute over property boundaries and title between two parties, leading to two suits being filed in the Munsiff Court, Adoor. The petitioners, C.K. Omana and P.V. Linukumar, are defendants in O.S. No. 525 of 2012 and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 70 of 2013, while the respondents, Rajan Pillai and Revamma, are on the opposing sides in the respective suits. The cases were consolidated for joint trial, with a commissioner appointed to inspect the property and file a report. Discontent with the initial surveyor, the petitioners sought a replacement, leading to procedural complications and delays.

Justice Edappagath highlighted the critical need for accurate property identification in cases involving boundary disputes. "The appointment of a commissioner for proper identification of the property is absolutely necessary for resolving the dispute between the parties," the court stated.

The petitioners filed I.A. No. 1/2020 to change the surveyor initially appointed. The trial court allowed this application without hearing the respondents, who then successfully sought a review. Despite the review application being allowed, the trial court did not issue a final order on I.A. No. 1/2020 and proceeded to list the suit for trial. The High Court noted that the trial should not proceed without resolving the application regarding the surveyor.

Justice Edappagath set aside the Munsiff Court's order listing the suit for trial, directing that I.A. No. 1/2020 be disposed of within two weeks after hearing both sides. "Since the commissioner did not file the final report, the trial court ought not have listed the suit for trial," the judgment emphasized. The trial court was instructed to resolve the interlocutory application and then proceed with the trial.

The High Court's decision hinges on ensuring procedural fairness and thoroughness in judicial processes, particularly in property disputes where precise identification and documentation are crucial. By mandating the disposal of interlocutory applications prior to trial, the court aims to prevent premature trials that might overlook critical evidentiary and procedural issues.

Justice Edappagath remarked, "The trial court ought not have listed the suit for trial without resolving the application regarding the surveyor. Proper identification of the property is indispensable for a fair adjudication."

The High Court's directive reinforces the judiciary's commitment to procedural integrity, particularly in complex property disputes. This judgment is expected to serve as a precedent, ensuring that trial courts adequately address interlocutory applications before proceeding to trial, thereby safeguarding the rights and interests of all parties involved.

Date of Decision: June 6, 2024

 

Latest Legal News