Dismissed

A.a.Muhammed Haneefa v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC13 Nov 2007CRP/985/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition. The court held that the petitioner's conduct demonstrated gross negligence and grave misconduct due to consistent delays and relying on another to contest an ex parte suit, thereby barring the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence and grave misconduct.

A.a.Muhammed Haneefa Vs Federal Bank Ltd. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

CRP.No. 985 of 2007()

¶6

-------------------------CMA.164/2004 of IST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.1051/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: IST APPELLANT/ IST PETITIONER/IST ----------------------- DEFENDANT

¶8

A.A.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O. ABOOBACKER, ARAKKAVEETTIL (HOUSE)FAROOK NAGAR, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS

¶10

SRI.N.P.SAMUEL

¶11

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF

¶12

----------------

¶13

FEDERAL BANK LTD., VADANAPPILLY BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 985 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2007.

¶17

This revision petition is preferred against the order of the 1^st Addl. District Court, Thrissur in CMA 164/04. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The suit was decreed exparte. With a delay of 251 days an application to set aside the exparte decree was passed. No evidence was adduced. It ended it dismissal. With a delay of 322 days a CMA is filed against the order of the learned Munsiff. There also the District Court found no ground to condone the delay and dismissed the delay condonation application as well as the CMA.

¶18

I am conscious of the fact that the broad principles of natural justice always demands that an opportunity should be given to the party to contest the case on merits. But it is equally well cautioned that if the party is guilty of grave negligence or grave misconduct, then the discretionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in their favour.

¶19

CRP NO. 985 of 2007

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

Here the first defendant only submits that he had entrusted the 2^nd defendant to contest the case and 2^nd defendant remained exparte on account of his ailment. Thereafter, he only entrusted the 2^nd defendant to prosecute the case. To crown all these things delay has been the consistent practice and the conduct of the revision petitioner itself shows that he is guilty of gross negligence and grave misconduct. Therefore I do not find any merit in this CRP and it is dismissed.

¶22

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶23

ul/-

A.a.Muhammed Haneefa v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.a.Muhammed Haneefa v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rajappan Nair Vs Mathew Philip

Punnan Philip S. Vs Nithya Jacob

Manikandan Nair Vs Ratheesh

Krishna Pillai Chellappan Pillai Vs Krishnan Kochukunju Panicker

Thomas P.John Vs Geojit Financial Ser.Ltd

K.S.E.Board Vs K.S.Mohammed