Dismissed

Rohini v. Syamala Kumari

Kerala HC11 Feb 2011OP(C)/315/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retrenched Constitutional writ petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside an ex parte decree and condone delay. High Court refused interference as findings of fact were sound away sufficient grounds noting ex parte decree was passed in 2006. Court granted six months time to pay off decree debt before dismissing petition and adjorned execution proceedings accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Execution proceedings adjourned for six months to pay off decree debt; original petition dismissed thereafter.

Rohini Vs Syamala Kumari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932

¶5

OP(C).No. 315 of 2010(O)

¶6

-----------------------CMA.99/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.209/2002 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, SOUTH PARAVUR

(IA 327/2008)

PETITIONER

ROHINI, D/O.SUBHADRA AMMA, FROM SOUPARNIKA, KIZHAKKANEL CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK,

¶11

NOW RESIDING AT COIAMBATORE, TAMILNADU STATE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S.

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

SYAMALA KUMARI, D/O.RUGMINI AMMA, NEDIYAVILA VEEDU, NEDUMGOLAM CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.

¶16

ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR FOR R

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(C).No. 315 of 2010(O)

¶19

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶21

EXT.P1:- COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NO.327 OF 2008 AND I.A.NO.328 OF 2008 IN O.S.NO.209 OF 2002 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR.

¶22

EXT.P2:- COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN CMA NO.99 OF 2008 AND CMA NO.100 OF 2008 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶26

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶27

O.P.(C).No.315 OF 2010

¶28

Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The respondent filed O.S.No.209 of 2002 on the

¶31

file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, South Parur
against the petitioner for realisation of money.
The suit was decreed ex parte on 21.3.2006. The
petitioner filed I.A.Nos.327 of 2008 and 328 of
2008 to set aside the ex parte decree and to
condone the delay of 672 days in filing the

¶32

application to set aside ex parte decree.

¶33

2. The contention of the petitioner is that

¶34

she was residing in Coimbatore and that she was not
properly informed about the proceedings in the

¶35

suit. Counsel also pointed out that the
relationship between the petitioner and her husband

¶36

became strained. On a petition filed by her

¶37

husband, an ex parte order for divorce was passed.

¶38

O.P.(C).No.315 OF 2010 2

¶39

3. Before the court below, no evidence was

¶40

adduced. The trial court as well as the appellate
court did not believe the version put forward by

¶41

the petitioner that she was in Coimbatore. The
courts below held that no sufficient grounds have
been made out to condone the delay. The petitioner
failed to prove that she was prevented by
sufficient cause from appearing before the court
when the suit was taken up for hearing.

¶42

4. The findings rendered by the court below are
findings of fact. In an Original Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is
no justification for interfering with the well
considered order and judgment passed by the courts
below. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere

¶43

with the orders passed by the courts below.

¶44

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that Execution Proceedings are going on
and the petitioner would be put to irreparable

¶45

O.P.(C).No.315 OF 2010 3

¶46

injury unless the proceedings in execution are kept
in abeyance.

¶47

6. Taking into account the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that
six months' time can be granted to the petitioner
to pay off the decree debt. The Execution
Proceedings shall stand adjourned for six months.

¶48

With the above facility to pay off the decree
amount, the Original Petition is dismissed.

¶49

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

¶50

cms

Rohini v. Syamala Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini v. Syamala Kumari

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

Joseph Prakash Vs Habeebulla

George Abraham Vs Ranni Marthoma Medical Mission Centre

Mohideen Kutty Haji and 3 Others Vs Hamsa & 2 Others

Juval George Vs B.K.Vijayan

P.a.Xavier Vs Tresamma and Another

Regunathan Vs P.Ramani and 13 Others