IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1251 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- OS.341/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONERS (S)/COUNTER PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REGAL ANTONY, DAUGHTER OF ROSALIN RICHARD, AGED 51 YEARS, FERNEY ROAD, BARNET, HERTSFORDSHIRE, UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, THE 2ND PETITIONER. 2. ROSALINE RICHARD, DAUTHTER OF JOSEPHINE GOMEZ, JUPITER HOUSE, ST.ANDREW'S, ST.XAVIER'S COLLEGE P.O., KAZHAKKUTTAM, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- DEVARAJAN, SON OF RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR D.S.SADANAM, TC 8/165, CHERUVICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, ALONG WITH O.P(C) Nos. 1252, 1253 & 1254 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------------------------------------- O.P(Civil). NOs. 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254, OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass which does not in any way affect right of respondent. 2. Respondents filed 4 suits O.S Nos. 341 of 2006 and 347 of 2006 for enforcement of alleged agreement of sale and O.S.Nos 372 of 2007 and 444 of 2007 for a decree for prohibitory injunction all concerning the same property. The suits were disposed of on 30.10.2010. According to the petitioners, judgment was not pronounced in open court as required but petitioners learned from the A Diary the same day that the suits were disposed of. Within one hour the same day, petitioners filed applications for issue of carbon copy of judgment. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P9, order in these petitions. The reason stated is that there was no oral application for issue of carbon copy as required under Rule 239 (3) of Civil Rules of Practice at the time of passing the order. Learned counsel contends that since judgment was not pronounced in open court and it was only from A Diary that petitioners learned disposal of the suit no oral request could be O.P(Civil). NOs. 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254/2010 2 made at the time of pronouncement of the judgment but, within an hour therefrom, the same day, applications were preferredfor the issue of carbon copy. 3. Under Rule 239(3) of Civil Rules of Practice, any party to the proceeding may immediately after the judgment or order is pronounced apply orally to the court for a carbon copy or photo copy thereto. In the present case immediately after pronouncement of judgment, petitioners have filed applications for the issue of carbon copy. That in my view is sufficient compliance with Rule 239(3) of the Rules referred above. In that view of matter, learned Sub Judge was not correct in dismissing the applications. Resultantly, these petitions are allowed and I.A No. 6472 of 2010 (O.S No.341 of 2006), I.A No.6470 of 2010 (O.S.347 of 2006), I.A No. 6469 of 2010 (O.S.372 of 2007) and I.A. No. 6471 of 2010 ( O.S.No.444 of 2007) of the court of Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram will stand allowed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to issue carbon copy of judgments as applied vide said applications as early as possible. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE O.P(Civil). NOs. 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254/2010 3 mns