Dismissed

C.I.Koshy v. Abraham Thomas

Kerala HC12 Sept 2013UNNUMB.CRP/261/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court rejected an unnumbered civil revision petition disputing the Registry's refusal to number it. The court distinguished Devineni Padmaja and relied on Shyam Sundar Sarma to uphold the objection, noting the petitioner had already filed a limitation-barred appeal. No prejudice was caused by the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The unnumbered civil revision petition is rejected; liberty is reserved to challenge the order in appropriate proceedings.

C.I.Koshy Vs Abraham Thomas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/21ST BHADRA, 1935

¶5

UNNUMB.CRP.No. 261 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 261/2011 of DISTRICT COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 31-01-2013

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN I.A:

¶8

C.I.KOSHY, S/O.ABRAHAM, CHEMPALATHU HOUSE, CHENNEERKARA P.O., CHENNEERKARA MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.E.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER IN I.A.:

¶11

ABRAHAM THOMAS, CHEMPALATHU, ANISH BHAVAN, CHENNEERKARA P.O., CHENNEERKARA MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK-689 503.

¶12

THIS UNNUMBERED CRP HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶15

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶16

Unnumbered C.R.P.No. of 2013 (Z.C.R.P.No.261 of 2013)

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Registry has declined to number the civil revision petition on the ground that the petitioner should challenge the order dismissing the application to condone the delay in filing a first appeal before the second appellate court. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Devineni Padmaja v. Vundavalli Srinivasa Rao [(2012) 10 SCC 488] that the Apex Court had entertained and disposed of an appeal arising from the order passed by the High Court of Andra Pradesh allowing a civil revision petition from an order rejecting an application to condone the delay in filing a first appeal, in the light of the decision of a three judge bench of the Apex Court in Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal and Others [2005 (1) SCC 436], the said contention cannot be accepted. Moreover, in Devineni Padmaja v. Vundavalli Srinivasa Rao (supra) the Apex Court did not consider the question which arose for consideration and was decided by the three judge bench of the Apex Court in Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal

¶20

Unnumbered C.R.P.No. of 2013 (Z.C.R.P.No.261 of 2013)

¶21

¶22

Jaiswal and Others (supra).

¶23

I accordingly uphold the objection raised by the Registry and reject the unnumbered civil revision petition, reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in other appropriate proceedings. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner has already filed an appeal challenging the judgment of the first appellate court, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation and therefore, no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to him if the unnumbered civil revision petition is rejected.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE

¶26

/true copy/

¶27

P.A. To Judge

¶28

vpv

C.I.Koshy v. Abraham Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.I.Koshy v. Abraham Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alex P.Cyriac Vs Hindustan News Print Ltd. & Others

Sabu Augustine Vs Deputy Director of Collegiate Education

Islamic Cultural and Educational Trust Vs Sarada

Varghese P.O. Vs Antony

O.Unnikrishnan Nambisan Vs T.J.Mathew

The Pettah Valiaveettil Shivan Vs Dr. Balakrishnan