Dismissed

Vimala v. Sukumaran

Kerala HC6 Sept 2012OP(C)/2802/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Writ Petition, the High Court of Kerala examined an application filed to set aside an ex-parte decree where the lower court allowed the delay condonation but then rectified its oversight by not considering a pending review application. The High Court held there was no jurisdictional error warranting interference and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. No relief granted.

Vimala Vs Sukumaran — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/15TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 2802 of 2012 (O)

¶6

OS.106/2008 of SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

VIMALA. W/O. CHERULI KUTTAN, AGED 62 YEARS NANDIPULAM VILLEGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶9

SHAIJU, S/O.CHERULI KUTTAN,, AGED 25 YEARS NANDIPULAM VILLEGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

SHEELA, D/O.CHERULI KUTTAN,, AGED 40 YEARS NANDIPULAM VILLEGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶11

SHEEJA, D/O.CHERULI KUTTAN,, AGED 36 YEARS NANDIPULAM VILLEGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶12

SHINA, D/O.CHERULI KUTTAN,, AGED 34 YEARS NANDIPULAM VILLEGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶13

SINDHU, D/O.CHERULI KUTTAN,, AGED 32 YEARS NANDIPULAM VILLEGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

SUKUMARAN, S/O.PARAMEL KUTTAN,, AGED 46 YEARS THRIKKUR VILLEGE & DESOM MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(C) NO. 2802/2012

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE EP.NO.55/2011 IN O.S.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDAA DT.5-3-2011

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3077/2011 IN O.A.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.19-7-2011.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3078/2011 IN O.A.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.19-7-2011.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3079/2011 IN O.A.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.19-7-2011.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EP.NO.55/2011 IN O.S. NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.20-7-2011

¶26

EXHIBIT-P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4572/2011 IN O.S.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 19-9-2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION I.A.NO.4572/2011 IN O.S. NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 27-9-2011.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3078/2011 IN O.S. NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 10-10-2011

¶29

EXHIBIT-P9 - A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DT.1-12-11

¶30

EXHIBIT-P10 - A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.5597/2011 IN I.A. NO.3078/2011 IN O.S.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 5-3-2011

¶31

EXHIBIT-P11 - A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A.NO.5597/2011 IN I.A. NO.3078/2011 IN O.S.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 3-122011.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P12 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.5597/2011 IN I.A. NO.3078/2011 IN O.S.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 6-2-2012.

¶33

EXHIBIT-P13 - A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A.NO.3078/2011 IN O.S.NO.106/2008 OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 18-2-2011.

¶34

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶35

/TRUE COPY/

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶37

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶38

OP(C) NO. 2802 OF 2012

¶39

Dated this the 6^th day of September, 2012

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No. 3079/2011 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex-parte decree in a suit for specific performance and consequential injunction. The same was supported by I.A. No. 3078/2011 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The respondent/plaintiff was set exparte in those proceedings and he had filed I.A. No. 4572/2011 to set aside that order which was pending.

¶42

The court below without noticing the pendency of I.A. No. 4572/2011 allowed I.A. No. 3078/2011 and condoned the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree on payment of costs of ` 750/- within seven days. This order was sought to be reviewed by the respondent by filing I.A. No. 5597/2011 contending that he could not effectively oppose the application to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree due to the non consideration of I.A.

¶43

¶44

OP(C) No. 2802/2012

¶45

No. 4572/2011. The court below has by the order impugned allowed I.A. No. 5597/2011 filed for review and has posted I.A. No. 4572/2011 for fresh hearing.

¶46

The court below has only rectified the mistake committed by it earlier in not noticing the pendency of I.A. No. 4572/2011 while allowing I.A. No. 3078/2011 to condone the delay. I am sure that the court below will pass fresh orders on I.A. No. 3078/2011 after considering I.A. No. 4572/2011 filed by the respondent. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference in this jurisdiction.

¶47

The Original Petition fails and is dismissed.

¶48

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶49

ncd

Vimala v. Sukumaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimala v. Sukumaran

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

Viswambharan Vaidyar Vs the Sreenarayana Trust

Muhammed Vs K. Sankarankutty

A.Parameswaran Vs Shyamala & Others

K.S.E.B Vs Karuvrakkal Kumaran Master

P.G.Shaji Vs v.v.Muraleedharan

Nakulan Vs South Malabar Gramin Bank