Dismissed

R.Radhakrishna Pai v. Sumithrabai

Kerala HC13 Jul 2011CRP/950/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed petitioners to withdraw their civil revision petition without prejudice to their rights to appeal against the order dismissing the application to set aside an ex parte decree and the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the revision petition without prejudice to rights to challenge orders dismissed in appeal.

R.Radhakrishna Pai Vs Sumithrabai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933

¶5

CRP.No. 950 of 2007()

¶6

IA.1667/2005 IN OS.912/2000 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA

¶7

PETITIONER / PETITIONER IN I.A / 7TH DEFENDANT IN SUIT:

¶8

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

¶9

R.RADHAKRISHNA PAI, S/O.LATE RAYA PAI, RESIDING AT VALIYA VEETTIL, THIRUMALA BHAGAM, PADINJATTUMKARA VADAKKUM MURI, KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI. SUNIL JACOB JOSE SRI. J. OMPRAKASH SMT.K.N.VIGY

¶11

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS IN I.A. / PLAINTIFFS IN SUIT:

¶12

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

¶13

1. SUMITHRABAI, W/O.LATE NARAYANA PAI, "SUNDAR NIVIZIL", SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

2. JYOTHI, S/O.M.RAJIV KUMAR, S/O.LATE NARAYANA PAI, "SUNDAR NIVIZIL", SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶15

3. T.N.CHANDINI, D/O.LATE NARAYANA PAI, "SUNDAR NIVIZIL", SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

¶20

C.R.P.No.950 of 2007

¶21

Dated this 13^th day of July, 2011

¶22

ORDER

¶23

There was an ex parte decree against petitioner in O.S.No.912 of 2000 of the Court of learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala. Petitioner filed application to set aside that ex parte decree and another application (I.A.No.1667 of 2005) to condone the delay in filing that application. I.A.No.1667 of 2005 was dismissed. That order is under challenge in this civil revision. Learned counsel submits that order dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree has not so far been challenged. In the circumstance, learned counsel has requested permission to withdraw this revision petition without prejudice to the right to petitioner to challenge dismissal of the application to set aside the ex parte decree in appeal and canvas correctness of dismissal of I.A.No.1667 of 2005 in such appeal. Having heard learned counsel, I am inclined to allow the request.

¶24

Resultantly this civil revision is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the order dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree (in O.S.No.912 of 2000 of the Court of learned Additional Munsiff,

¶25

C.R.P.No.950 of 2007

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

Cherthala) subject to the law of limitation and the power of the Court concerned to condone/exclude the delay as the case may be and in such appeal challenge correctness of the order dismissing I.A.No.1667 of 2005.

¶28

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶29

Sbna/-

R.Radhakrishna Pai v. Sumithrabai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Radhakrishna Pai v. Sumithrabai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Venkatesh Bhat Vs the Kasaragod Municipality,Rep.by Secy.

Sudharma Vs Sivadasan

Joseph Nadar Rajayyan Vs Avel Enose

M.Madhu Vs State Bank of Travancore & Another

Vamana Prabhu @ N.P.Prabhu Vs Sree Krishnaswamy Devaswom

The Ekm.Thirumala Devaswom Vs M/S.a.R.Prabhu