Dismissed

National Institute of Technology, Calicut v. Shri.K.P.Chandrahasan

Kerala HC28 Nov 2012CRP/520/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam affirmed the lower court's order restoring a civil suit dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. The court clarified that while writ challenges filed by the defendant regarding contract termination affect the merits, these do not warrant interfering with the restoration order.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; order of the court below affirming restoration of the suit is upheld subject to clarification on pending writ petitions.

National Institute of Technology, Calicut Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 520 of 2012 ()

¶6

IA.NO.944/2011 IN OS.839/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S):

¶8

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT

¶9

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, N.I.T.CAMPUS, CHATHAMANGALAM AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING UNIT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

¶11

CALICUT, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, N.I.T.CAMPUS, CHATHAMANGALAM AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

SHRI.K.P.CHANDRAHASAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.APPUTTY, CONTRACTOR, VISWAHINDU BHAVAN P.O.CHALAPPURAM, KASABA AMSOM, DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 602.

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶17

C.R.P.No. 520 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The court below has by the order impugned set aside aside an earlier order dismissing the suit for default and restored the same to file. It is true that the suit was so dismissed on the basis of an endorsement made by the counsel for the plaintiff. But then the plaintiff has an explanation that there was a communication gap and did not receive the intimation sent from the office of his counsel.

¶21

The court below has allowed the application for restoration under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioners/defendants. The court below has found that the plaintiff/respondent was prevented by sufficient cause for his non-appearance and that a restoration of the suit is essential for disposal on merits. The court below has exercised its discretion in fixing the costs at Rs.2,000/- and the order of the court below restoring the suit to file calls for no interference under the circumstances.

¶22

C.R.P.No.520 of 2012

¶23

¶24

The petitioners have a case that the respondent had earlier filed W.P.(C) Nos.4039/11 and 10650/11 challenging the termination of contract with the petitioners. It is also stated that the writ petitions were filed after the suit was got dismissed and that the entire exercise is bereft of bonafides. All these are matters affecting the merits of the claim made in the suit which will be taken note of by the court below at the time of final disposal.

¶25

The order of the court below is affirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed subject to the above clarification.

¶26

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶27

nj.

National Institute of Technology, Calicut v. Shri.K.P.Chandrahasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Institute of Technology, Calicut v. Shri.K.P.Chandrahasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Gafoor Vs v.a.Thomas

Chacko Vs State of Kerala and Others

Gopinath Bhatt Vs Cochin Thirumal Devaswom

Santhosh Club Vs v.v.Philip

Santhosh Club Vs v.v.Philip

Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Vs Sumithra