Noushad v. Mohanan
Case brief
What is this about?
In OP(C) No. 1800 of 2012, Justice V. Chitambaresh set aside the impugned order refusing to restore a suit dismissed for default costs and directed the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur to restore the suit upon payment of costs by 15.11.2012.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order set aside; suit to be restored upon payment of costs by 15.11.2012 in the court below.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/10TH KARTHIKA 1934
OP(C).No. 1800 of 2012 ()
ORDER DATED 18/1/2011 IN IA.NO.3981/2011 IN OS.365/2005 BEFORE THE PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S):
NOUSHAD, S/O.SIDDHIQUE, THEKKETHILVEETTIL, VENGANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. MOHANAN, S/O.KUNNATHVEETTIL KARUPPAKUTTY,
ERUMAPETTY DESOM, KARIYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should grant another opportunity to the plaintiff to pay costs to restore a suit dismissed for default.
Whether the impugned order refusing restoration of the suit should be set aside.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
NOUSHAD, S/O.SIDDHIQUE
- respondent
MOHANAN, S/O.KUNNATHVEETTIL KARUPPAKUTTY
- respondent
SATHYAN, S/O.OZHICHIRANJAIL MAKKU
- respondent
VISWAMBARAN, S/O.POOTHEDATHVEETTIL KARUPPAKUTTY
- respondent
RATHEESH, S/O.UTTUKUZHIYILVEETTIL RAVI
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court