Single Judge of Kerala High Court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging the refusal to set aside an ex-parte decree in a boundary and injunction suit. The court found no grounds for delay and held such petitions not maintainable under Section 115 CPC.
Civil Revision Petitions dismissed, jurisdiction declined under Section 115 CPC.
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 V.CHITAMBARESH
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/2ND ASWINA 1934
CRP.No. 385 of 2012 ()
CMA.46/2011 of DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM IA.NO.3876/2010 IN OS.82/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:
M.C.JOSEPH @ KURIACHAN,
S/O KORAH CHANDY, MANTHURUTHIYIL CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, VEROOR, CHEERAMCHIRA CHANGANASSERY.
BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER
PETITIONERS:
NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY - 686 101
PIN - 686 101
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-09-2012, ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.387 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
C.R.P.Nos. 385 & 387 of 2012
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2012
O R D E R
The suit is for cancellation of a document, fixation of boundary and for prohibitory injunction. None of the defendants entered appearance and the suit was decreed ex-parte. The courts below have concurrently refused to set aside the ex-parte decree as against the first defendant.
C.R.P.Nos.385 & 387 of 2012
2
been made out to set aside the ex-parte decree.
I decline jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether grounds sufficient to condone an inordinate delay of four years existed to set aside an ex-parte decree.
Whether under Section 115 CPC an ex-parte decree can be revived to reopen a suit that did not terminate proceedings.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the refusal to set aside an ex-parte decree is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.C.Joseph @ Kuriachan
Sr.Ciciliamma Chandy
Aniyamma Antony
Thressiama Varghese
Laisamma Joseph
Aliyamma Varghese
V.Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
