Disposed

Devadas v. B.P.Subhash

Kerala HC5 Jan 2009CRP/5/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of the civil revision petition by directing the lower court to correct the judgment and decree by making the intended 'Ext.C2(a)' plan part of the decree instead of the rough sketch 'Ext.C1(a)', as the amendment was inadvertently stayed due to a missing copy.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to get down the judgment and decree from the appellate court, effectuate the correction regarding the plan mentioned, and send it back.

Devadas Vs B.P.Subhash — Kerala HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930

¶4

CRP.No. 5 of 2009 --------------------OS.621/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -----------------------------------------------------

¶6

DEVADAS, T.C.16/1184,DEEPAK BHAVAN, THAYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

¶8

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

¶9

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

¶10

B.P.SUBHASH,MAYAKOTTARAM, KARAKULAM, KARAKULAM VILLAGE.

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.

¶13

C. R. P No.5 of 2009

¶14

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2009

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.621/05 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad. He assails the order of the court below passed on 05/11/08 on I.A.2559/08 on the

¶17

following lines. “The defendant filed affidavit that copy of judgment and decree cannot be produced as it is produced in appeal. As such amendment cannot be made”.

¶18

I.A. 2559/08 was an application

¶19

seeking for correction of the judgment and decree effecting correction of “Ext.C1(a)” plan made mention of as “Ext.C2(a)” as Ext.C1 (a) is only a rough sketch and what the court intended was to make Ext.C2(a) plan as part of the decree. The correction so sought for was initially allowed by the trial court vide order on the said I.A. passed on 17/07/08. By

¶20

-2-

¶21

C. R. P No.5 of 2009

¶22

the subsequent order dt.05/11/08 the court has recorded only that as the defendant has filed affidavit reporting that the copy of judgment and decree cannot be produced as it is produced in appeal the amendment cannot be made which means the amendment cannot be made therein and not that the amendment sought for is not allowed. The court below is directed to get down copy of decree and judgment from the appellate court and cause correction to be effected and thereafter to send it back to the appellate court. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the trial court to have the above direction complied with.

¶23

This C.R.P is disposed of with the above direction.

¶24

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶25

kns/-

Devadas v. B.P.Subhash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devadas v. B.P.Subhash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.v.James Vs O.v.Johny

Suprabha Vs Salim S.Rajan

Peringottukara Namboothiri Yogakshema Vs K.B.Aliyar

Mathew and Another Vs Range Officer and Another

Nataraja Gowndar Vs Renjith Kumar

S.Rema Vs Bahuleyan Nair