Allowed

Chellama v. Bhanumathi and 7 Others

Kerala HC9 Oct 2012CRP/587/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the dismissal of an application for restoration of a suit dismissed for default. The Court found sufficient cause due to the petitioner's hospitalization and ordered the restoration subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The applications for restoration of the suit (I.A Nos. 849/2008 and 850/2008) are allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 costs to the Kerala High Court Advocates Welfare Fund Trust.

Chellama Vs Bhanumathi and 7 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/17TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 587 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CMA.26/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA OS.206/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

CHELLAMMA, D/O.VELLUMBI,THONDAYIL VEETTIL, PAVUMBA THEKKU MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY, FROM PARIYARATHU VEEDU,THAMARAKULAM WEST MURI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. BHANUMATHI, MALAMUTTATHU VEEDU, MUNDAKOTTU PADEETATHIL,THAMARAKULAM WEST MURI, THAMARAKULAM 690 530.

¶12

2. SASI-DO-

¶13

3. RAMAN, PARIYARATHU THEKKATHIL VEEDU, THAMRAKULAM WEST MURI, THAMARAKULAM 690 530.

¶14

4. OMANA, MALAMUTTATHU VEEDU, MUNDAKOTTU PADEETATHIL, THAMRAKULAM WEST MURI, THAMARAKULAM 690 530.

¶15

5. RAGHAVAN, -DO-.

¶16

6. SANTHA KUMARI,-DO-.

¶17

7. RADHAMANI, -DO-.

¶18

8. SARASWATHY, -DO-.

¶19

BY ADV.

¶20

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶24

C.R.P No. 587 of 2010

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2012

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The suit is one for a declaration that the 'patta' granted to defendants 1 to 3 is not binding on the plaintiff and for putting up a boundary on the south eastern side. The suit was listed for trial on 24-9-2003 when the Counsel for the plaintiff sought adjournment. The adjournment sought was refused and thereupon the Counsel for the plaintiff reported 'no instructions'. The suit was resultantly dismissed for default.

¶28

The petitioner/plaintiff thereafter filed an application for restoration of the suit dismissed for default with a petition to condone delay. I.A No.849/2008 was filed to condone the delay of four years, six months and fifty days and I.A No.850/2008 was filed for restoration of the suit. The courts below have by the orders impugned dismissed the applications.

¶29

There is no appearance for the respondents despite service of notice in the Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner had produced Ext.A1 registration card and Ext.A2 discharge card from Sree Chithra Thirunal Medical Science and

¶30

C.R.P No. 587 of 2010 2

¶31

Technology. The same reflected that she was an inpatient in the hospital and was treated for Sphenoid Sinus mass. It needs no elaboration to find that the petitioner was a sick lady. This probably would have disabled her from instructing her counsel in time.

¶32

Every endeavour should be made to have the lis disposed of on merits. I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to have the suit disposed of on merits. I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default. I.A Nos.849/2008 and 850/2008 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Mavelikkara are allowed. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the Kerala High Court Advocates Welfare Fund Trust within a period of one month from today.

¶33

The impugned orders will remain intact if the costs as directed above is not paid. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶34

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶35

smm

¶36

Certified that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) as costs to the Kerala High Court Advocates Welfare Fund Trust as directed in the order dated 09/10/2012 within the stipulated time, vide memo c.f. 4772/2012 dated 05/11/2012.

¶37

Sd/Registrar Judicial

¶38

C.R.P No. 587 of 2010 3

¶39

C.R.P No. 587 of 2010 4

Chellama v. Bhanumathi and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellama v. Bhanumathi and 7 Others

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

P.Thamban Nair Vs Meethale Veettil Madhavi

Vellayamattom Bhagavathy Vs M/S. Karikode Rubber Ltd.

Damodharan Nair Vs Banarji

M.K. Rajesh Vs Lohithakshan

M.a.Majeeth Vs a.K.Jayadev Singh

Mohandas Vs Sudhakara Panicker