In a revision petition regarding disposal of partition suit decree passed ex parte. The High Court held that the decree, passed over three years after the ex parte appearance, cannot be reopened as the law assists vigilant parties.
The civil revision petition and the pending interim application stand 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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933
CRP.No. 256 of 2006()
-------------------------------CMA.NO. 182/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM (IN I.A.NO.256/1997 IN OS.NO. 1879/1993 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM)
---------------------------
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT
----------------------------------------------------
SADASIVAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, T.C.36/1104, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN
SRI.B.SATHIQ SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------
1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT PULLIYIL BUNGLOW, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. NANDESWARAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT BUNGLOW VEEDU, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT BUNGLOW VEEDU, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. YESODHA, S/O. PONNU, RESIDING AT KATTAYAMMOOLA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. AJITHA, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2/-
-2-
CRP.NO.256/2006
6. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. RAVEENDRAN,
RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7. AMBILI, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
8. GEETHA, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
9. SINDHU, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
10. GANESAN, S/O. RAVEENDRAN,
11. SIVAPRASAD, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAYAMMOTA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
12. SUBASH @ JAYAPRASAD, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAYAMOOTA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
13. MONIKUTTAN @ SIVAPRIYAN, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAYAMOOTA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
C.R.P.No.256 of 2006
-------------------------------------Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.1879 of 1993 of the court of learned II Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a suit filed by the first respondent against petitioner and others for partition of properties. There was an exparte decree on 26.06.1995 which was sought to be set aside by the petitioner vide I.A.No.256 of 1997. There was also an application to condone the delay in filing that application. Trial court found no merit in the explanation stated for condonation of delay, and dismissed both the applications. Petitioner challenged the order in C.M.A.No.182 of 2003. Learned Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the order. Hence this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner has obtained mortgage right over the property which contention could not be raised in the suit. It is also contended that the delay was properly explained. It is contended by learned counsel that the suit was dismissed for default as against some of the respondents and at that time petitioner's advocate had told him that the suit was dismissed as against him as well.
was not appealing to the courts below. The exparte decree was passed on 26.06.1995. Courts below have observed from the affidavit of petitioner that
CRP No.256/2006
2
even regarding the date on which he allegedly got information about the exparte decree, there are contradictory version. At one stage it is stated that he learnt about the exparte decree on 20.01.1996 but at another stage, he claimed to have learnt about it on 20.03.1996. I must also bear in mind that decree was passed on 26.06.1995. The appellate court has observed that petitioner was set exparte on 03.02.1993. It is almost after three years that the exparte decree was passed.
Revision Petition is dismissed.
I.A.No.1221 of 2006 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a partition suit decree passed ex parte after a delay of over three years can be reopened by way of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.
SADASIVAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN
KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. PADMANABHAN
NANDESWARAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN
KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN
YESODHA, S/O. PONNU
AJITHA, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
