Disposed

Susamma Babu v. Gracy Soman

Kerala HC13 Sept 2012CRP/83/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the refusal to condone delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The court held that the petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a separate civil miscellaneous appeal against the consequential order.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appeal against the consequential order.

Susamma Babu Vs Gracy Soman — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 83 of 2012 ()

¶6

OS.58/2004 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

SUSAMMA BABU KAVINAL KIZHAKKATHIL, NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULAM PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶10

SRI.T.K.BABY (ERNAKULAM)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT.DEFENDANT:

¶12

GRACY SOMAN PANAPPADIYIL HOUSE, MEENKULAM, CHANNAPETTA PIN-691311.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN BY ADV. SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SHENOY

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶16

C.R.P.No. 83 of 2012

¶17

Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

An order refusing to condone the delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside an ex-parte decree is under challenge. I.A.No.729 of 2010 is for condonation of delay and I.A.No.730 of 2010 is to set aside the ex-parte decree in O.S.No.58 of 2004 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kottarakara for realisation of money.

¶20

It is submitted that I.A.No.729 of 2010 to condone

¶21

the delay alone has been dismissed by the court below and no consequential orders have been passed in I.A.No.730 of 2010 to set aside the ex-parte decree. It is open to the petitioner/defendant to file a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order to be passed in I.A.No.730 of 2010. The grounds urged in this Civil Revision Petition against the order in I.A.No.729 of 2010 could as well be incorporated in the appeal to be filed

¶22

C.R.P.No.83 of 2012

¶23

¶24

against I.A.No.730 of 2010. Needless to say that the court below will pass consequential orders in I.A.No.730 of 2010 soon in view of the orders already passed in I.A.No.729 of 2010.

¶25

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appeal as above. No costs.

¶26

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶27

nj.

Susamma Babu v. Gracy Soman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susamma Babu v. Gracy Soman

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

R.Thankamma Vs Dharma Ammal

George.a.X Vs Kochuparu

Thankamani Pavithran Vs Molly Peter

Vijaya Rajan Pillai Vs Parukutty Amma & 4 Ors.

Molikutty George Vs State of Kerala

P.Alavikutty Vs Abdul Khader Haji