The High Court of Kerala dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. It held that no sufficient cause was made out to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree for partition. The applicants failed to establish grounds to condone the delay under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and no error of jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC was found.
The Civil Revision Petition is 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 V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934`
CRP.No. 410 of 2012 ()
---------------------.NO./ IN CMA.99/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR IA.NO.4268/2003 IN OS.186/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 2 AND 3/4TH DEFENDANT:
1. RAMAN @ RAMANKUTTY, S/O. MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL PONNAN, RESIDING AT MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU
2. VILASINI, W/O. LATE SUBRAMANIAN, MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL HOUSE , PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & 4TH AND 5TH APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1. KALYANI,D/O. MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL KOPPUNNY,
2. KARTHIAYANI, D/O. MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL KOPPUNNY, MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR-680301
3. MEENAKSHY, D/O. MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL KOPPUNNY, MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR-680301
4. PARU,D/O. MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL KOPPUNNY, MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR-680301
5. VINAYAN, S/O. LATE SUBRAMANIAN, MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR-680301
6. VINOD,S/O. LATE SUBRAMANIAN, MANNAMKUNNATH MOORAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR-680301
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-102012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SMM
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P No.410 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2012
O R D E R
The courts below have concurrently refused to set aside the preliminary decree for partition passed exparte. The court below has noticed that the wife of the third defendant was served with summons as provided under Order V Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below has also taken note of the fact that the fourth respondent was personally served with summons in the suit.
C.R.P No.410 of 2012
2
below that the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the third defendant and the fourth defendant have not established sufficient cause to set aside the exparte decree is well founded. There is no error of jurisdiction as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE
smm
C.R.P No.410 of 2012 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause is made out to set aside an ex parte preliminary decree for partition after a four-year delay.
Whether an error of jurisdiction exists to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Raman @ Ramankutty
Vilasin
Kalyani
Karthiayani
Meenakshy
Paru
V. Chitambarash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
