Allowed

K.V. Prasad v. South Malabar Gramin Bank

Kerala HC7 Jul 2015FAO/134/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree, the High Court allowed the appeal, noting the joint borrowal and efforts at settlement. The impugned order was set aside, and the related interim application to set aside the decree was also allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A. No. 604/2011 allowed; parties directed to appear on 17.09.2015 for mediation.

K.V. Prasad Vs South Malabar Gramin Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2015/12TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶6

FAO.No. 134 of 2012 () -----------------------

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.604/11 IN OS 37/2010 of SUB COURT, TIRUR DATED 20-01-2012

¶8

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------

¶9

1. K.V. PRASAD AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KUMMILIVEETTIL GOVINDAN ARIYALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK TIRUR.

¶10

2. K.V.PRADEEP AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUMMILIVEETTIL GOVINDAN ARIYALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK TIRUR.

¶11

3. K.V.PRAMEELA AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.KUMMILIVEETTIL GOVINDAN ARIYALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK TIRUR.

¶12

4. K.V.PRABITHA AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.KUMMILIVEETTIL GOVINDAN ARIYALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK TIRUR.

¶13

5. K.V.PRAMOD AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KUMMILIVEETTIL GOVINDAN ARIYALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK TIRUR.

¶14

6. K.V.VASANTHA AGED 77 YEARS, W/O.KUMMILIVEETTIL GOVINDAN ARIYALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK TIRUR.

¶15

BY ADV. SMT.BIMALA BABY

¶16

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶17

SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ARIYALLUR BRANCH, TIRUR REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCHMANAGER.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK

¶19

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

FAO.No. 134 of 2012

¶21

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

ANNEXURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF the PLAINT IN OS NO.37/2010 ON the FILE OF the COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE OF TIRUR

¶25

ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.4141/2010 IN OS.NO.37/2010 ON the FILE OF the COURT OF the SUB JUDGE OF TIRUR

¶26

ANNEXURE 3 : TRUE COPY OF the COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 31.01.2011 FILED BY the APPELLANTS

¶27

ANNEXURE 4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2011 IN I.A.NO.4141/2010 IN OS.27/2010 OF THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT, TIRUR

¶28

ANNEXURE 5 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2012 IN IA.NO.604/2011 IN O.S.NO.37/2010 OF the COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OR TIRUR

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶30

True Copy /

¶31

P.A to Judge

¶32

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶33

SUNIL THOMAS, JJ.

¶34

==============================

¶35

F.A.O.No.134 of 2012

¶36

==============================

¶37

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2015

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

¶40

Defendants in a suit for recovery of money instituted by a Gramin Bank are the appellants. They were set ex parte on different dates for non-appearance. When ex parte decree was passed immediately following the non-filing of the written statement, they applied to have the ex parte decree set aside within time. It appears to be a case of joint borrowal. That being so, the court below ought to have taken a lenient view and set aside the ex parte decree as a whole atleast on stringent conditions, particularly when there was no delay in applying to have the ex parte decree set aside. We are also satisfied that the application was supported by sufficient cause, that is to say, the defendants were attempting to have a settlement by negotiating with the plaintiff.

¶41

We also record the submission on behalf of the appellants that following order on I.A.No.659 of 2012, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited before the court below.

¶42

F.A.O.134/12

¶43

¶44

In the result, this appeal succeeds and the impugned order is set aside and resultantly, I.A.No.604 of 2011 in O.S.No.37 of 2010 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree in that suit is also allowed. Parties are directed to mark appearance before the court below on 17.09.2015. Trial court will expedite the final disposal of the suit and also would make an effort for A.D.R disposal through the mode of mediation, since we see an element of settlement in the litigation.

¶45

This appeal is ordered accordingly.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶50

Sbna

K.V. Prasad v. South Malabar Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Prasad v. South Malabar Gramin Bank

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

C.D.Thomas Vs State Bank of India

Suo Motu Vs Tdb, Rep. by Its Secretary

Sukumaran Vs Jayapal

United India Vs M/S.South Assam Carriers(Pvt) Ltd.

T.S. Muraleedharan Vs P.N.Soman & Others

Thomas Joseph Vs Siby George