K.R. Madhu v. Johnson
Case brief
What is this about?
This Court rejected the maintainability of challenging the condition for setting aside an ex-parte decree but granted the petitioner an extension of two months to comply with the deposit requirement imposed by the court below to reopen the suit.
What did the court decide?
Granted a period of two months to comply with the condition to set aside the ex-parte decree by depositing the amount quantified as on the date of decree.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/18TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRP.No. 152 of 2010 ( )
OS.673/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
K.R. MADHU, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNA PILLAI NANDAVANAM,V.P.IV/1213,KULASEKHARAM KODUNGANOOR PO, VATTIYOORKAVU TRIVANDRUM.EMPLOYED IN I.G.B.S7,FTR, HEAD QUARTERS UMPLING,SHILLONG,EAST WHATI HILLS DISTRICT, MEGHALAYA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
JOHNSON, S/O. SAMUEL, PRATEEKSHA SANTHI NAGAR,SREEKARYAM PO, ULLOOR TRIVANDRUM, DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.N.G.SINDHU BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge only the condition imposed for setting aside the ex-parte decree.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition was maintainable challenging the condition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Whether the period of two months granted by this Court is sufficient for the petitioner to comply with the deposit condition.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.R. MADHU
- respondent
JOHNSON
Coram
V. CHITAMBARESH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court