Pilakkttu Somasundaram v. N.P.Karthyayini
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court held that a revision is not maintainable against an order under Order 21 Rules 35, 97, and 99 CPC, as an appeal lies. The court closed the revision and allowed an appeal with a direction for exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
What did the court decide?
Revision closed; appeal preferred within two weeks for limitation exemption.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 77 of 2009() -------------------OS.508/1981 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II ....................
REVN. PETITIONER(S):
- PILAKKATTU SOMASUNDARAM, S/O.DAMODARAN, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
- PILAKKATTU BABY SAROJAM, D/O.DAMODARAN, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK
BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
- N.P.KARTHYAYANI, W/O.ANDIKUTTY, NANGARI PUNATHIL (H), VALAYANADU AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
- N.P.MOHANAN, NANGARI PUNATHIL (H), VALAYANADU AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
- N.P.SADANANDAN, NANGARI PUNATHIL (H), VALAYANADU AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision is maintainable against the order refusing an application for delivery of possession.
If an appeal is preferred, whether limitation exemption should be granted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
PILAKKATTU SOMASUNDARAM
- petitioner
PILAKKATTU BABY SAROJAM
- respondent
N.P.KARTHYAYANI
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court