The High Court of Kerala dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an appellate order that set aside an ex-parte decree awarded under CPC Order VIII Rule 10, citing Manick Peter v. Surendranathan and finding no jurisdictional error.
Civil Revision Petition No. 5 of 2011 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933
CRP.No. 5 of 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A.NO.28/2009 OF SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR IN I.A.NO.601/2009 IN O.S.NO.146/2008 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALIPARAMBA.
REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
KUNNAPPADA GOVINDAN, S/O. PARU, AGED 63 YEARS, KUNNAPPADA HOUSE, PARIYARAM AMSOM, VAYAD DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
RESPONDENT: PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUNHIRAMAN, S/O. APPA, AGED 64 YEARS, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, C.POYIL.P.O., PARIYARAM AMSOM, VAYAD DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT -670 003. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
I.A.NO.18/2011 IN C.R.P. NO.5/2011
DISMISSED
27/6/2011
SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
AHZ/
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
C.R.P. NO. 5 OF 2011 B
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011
O R D E R
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thaliparamba. The defendant in the suit appeared before Court. But, he did not file any written statement, though time was granted for the same. On 22.1.2009, the suit was decreed invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant filed I.A.No.601 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. On appeal (C.M.A.No.28 of 2009, Sub Court, Payyannur) by the plaintiff, the Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed I.A.No.601 of 2009, on condition that the defendant shall pay a sum of Rupees Two thousand as costs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenges the judgment in C.M.A.No.28 of 2009.
C.R.P. NO. 5 OF 2011
:: 2 ::
Procedure and, therefore, an application under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. A Division Bench of this Court in Manick Peter v. Surendranathan (1987 (2) KLT 328) held that merely for the reason that the decree was passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the failure of the defendant to file a written statement, it cannot be said that the decree is not an exparte decree.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
ahz/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition is maintainable to challenge the High Court's setting aside of an ex-parte decree and award of costs.
Whether Rule 13 of Order IX CPC is maintainable when a decree was passed under Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC.
Whether the exercise of appellate jurisdiction involved any jurisdictional error warranting revision under Section 115 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manick Peter v. SurendranathanFollowed¶27
(1987 (2) KLT 328)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Kunnappada Govindan
Puthiyapurayil Kunhiraman
K.T.Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
