Dismissed

K.Madhu v. Gangadharan Nair

Kerala HC18 Jun 2008WP(C)/18258/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala heard a writ petition challenging an Additional District Judge's order condoning a 1216-day appeal delay and imposing a Rs.10,000 fee. The Court found no ground to interfere, granting the petitioner liberty to file a review petition before the trial court. The Court directed the trial judge to dispose of the review within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given liberty to file a review petition regarding the cost within five days.

K.Madhu Vs Gangadharan Nair — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 18258 of 2008(W) -------------------------AS.353/2006 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

K.MADHU, S/O.APPU ASARI KRISHNA VILASOM, SASTHAMKONAM, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, SREEKARYAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

GANGADHARAN NAIR, S/O.LATE PADMANABHA PILLAI THOPPIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLI LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 11.

¶13

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.18258 of 2008

¶17

Dated this the 18^th June, 2008.

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.353 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Appeal was filed along with I.A.No.3217/2006, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1216 days in filing the appeal. Under Ext.P7 order, learned Additional District Judge allowed the application on terms. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the condition imposed by the learned Additional District Judge.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Additional District Judge did not properly appreciate the cause for the delay and has penalised the petitioner by directing him to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/= which is excessive and unreasonable, and, therefore, learned Additional District Judge may be directed to re-hear

¶21

W.P.(C) No.18258/2008

¶22

¶23

I.A.No.3217/2006, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶24

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P7 order. Under the said order, Additional District Judge has condoned the delay of 1216 days and compensated respondent by awarding a cost of Rs.10,000/=. If the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the quantum of cost awarded, petitioner is at liberty to file a petition to review the cost portion of Ext.P7 order before the Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. If such an application is filed, Additional District Judge to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, without any delay, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of filing of the petition. Petitioner is granted liberty to file the review petition within five days from today.

¶25

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

nj.

K.Madhu v. Gangadharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Madhu v. Gangadharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Bhaskaran

V.Letha Vs R.Murali

Sherly Vs Anoop

Sabeer Vs Sailavudheen

Chinthamony Vs Sumathy

Shaji Vs State of Kerala