Dismissed

Jaison Kurian v. Kuriakose

Kerala HC30 Jan 2008CRP/1981/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a civil revision petition seeking condonation of delay to restore a suit dismissed for default is not maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC, as an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 is the proper remedy. However, the delay in filing the appeal will be condoned considering the application's pendency before the High Court over seven years.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Jaison Kurian Vs Kuriakose — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

CRP.No. 1981 of 2001()

¶6

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

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2000 IN IA. 5470 /2000 IN OS.24/1998 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF

¶9

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

¶10

JAISON KURIAN, S/O. KURIAN, S/O. KURIAN AGED 40,. CHEMPARATHY HOUSE, EAST THODUPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN IA. / DEFENDANTS

¶13

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

¶14

1. KURIAKOSE, S/O. VARKEY KURIAKOSE, CHETHILOT HOUSE, ONAKUR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶15

2. KURUVILA S/O.THOMMACHAN, VIRIYAPILLIL HOUSE ONAKUR MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶16

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ERNAKULAM BRANCH.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI. RAJAN P. KALIYATH

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

¶20

C.R.P. NO. 1981 OF 2001

¶21

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2008

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This revision petition is preferred against the order in IA 5485/00 and IA 5470/00 in O.S. 24/98. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff filed an application with a petition to condone the delay of 230 days and also to restore the suit. The court below dismissed the delay condonation application as well as the restoration application. It is against that decision, the present revision petition is filed. In the light of the decision reported in Lilly v. Ragesh [2004 (3) KLT 712] when an application to condone delay as well as application to set aside ex parte decree is dismissed, no revision lies under Section115 and the remedy is to prefer appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1.

¶24

So, in the light of the said decision, this revision petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. But earnestly the matter has been prosecuted before this court for the last 7 years. So when an appeal is preferred with a petition to condone the delay, the factum of pendency of revision before this court may be considered as a genuine ground for condoning the delay.

¶25

This civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶27

vps

Jaison Kurian v. Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaison Kurian v. Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Lakshmi

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs K.S.Joseph

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Dharmarajan

State Vs Mohammed

K.S.E.Board Vs Kambakkaran Narayanan Nair

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Karthikeyan