The Kerala High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a decree obtained on an undertaking by defendants' counsel and the subsequent appellate court's reversal of that decree, finding no ground to interfere under Section 115 CPC.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly 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 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932
CRP.No. 47 of 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.30.10.2010 IN CMA.2/2010 OF SUB COURT, PALA I.A.NO.466 OF 2008 IN OS.336/2006 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALA
REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/PLANTIFF
AUGUSTIKUNJU, S/O.OUSEPH, ARACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAVATHUPARACKAL, MARANGADU KARA, VELLILAPPILLY VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM BAZAR.P.O., PIN-686 576.
BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO SRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
C.R.P. NO. 47 OF 2011
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
The plaintiff in O.S.No.336 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Pala, challenges the judgment in C.M.A.No.2 of 2010, Sub Court, Pala, by which, the Sub Court confirmed the order passed by the trial court reviewing the judgment and decree passed in the case.
C.R.P. NO.47 OF 2011
:: 2 ::
“All the defendants counsel undertaken before court that they have no intention to do any act as alleged by the plaintiff. The suit decreed. No costs.”
C.R.P. NO.47 OF 2011
:: 3 ::
C.R.P. NO.47 OF 2011
:: 4 ::
by the courts below. There is no ground for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
ahz/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is ground to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
Whether the Revision Petitioner has any right to get a decree based solely on a mistaken undertaking by the counsel.
Whether it is wrong for the Review Petition to be heard by a successor Munsiff instead of the original judge.
Augustikunju
Johnny
Babu
Francis @ Kunjappan
Saji
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
