Moideenkutty v. Veeran
Case brief
What is this about?
In this civil revision, the Court granted an opportunity to the petitioner to file a restitution application, subject to payment of costs, rejecting arguments that subsequent litigation rendered restoration futile.
What did the court decide?
I.A.No. 1769 of 1998 is restored to file subject to payment of Rs. 1500/- costs to the 4th respondent within one month.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929
CRP.No. 2617 of 2001
----------------------
( CMA.2/1999 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM I.A.No. 1769 of 1998 in OS.342/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM )
REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
MOIDEENKUTTY, , S/O. VATTAPARAMBIL KUNHIMOIDU, RESIDING AT KURUVATTUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner should be granted an opportunity to prosecute the application for restoration of the suit.
Whether subsequent filings and dismissals render restoration of the present suit unnecessary.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Moideenkutty
- respondent
Veeran
- respondent
Cheku
- respondent
Youssuf
- respondent
Kamaladevi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court