The High Court of Kerala dismissed an first appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The Court held that appellants' failure to utilize a prior opportunity to settle and their non-payment of interim stays persuaded against interference.
The ex parte decree was not set aside and the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2015/12TH ASHADHA, 1937 FAO.No. 28 of 2012 () ---------------------I.A.645/2011 in O.S.NO.1099/2006 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 19.09.2011
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------1. V.V. GANGADHARAN S/O.LATE VELAPPAN, VAZHAPPULLY VEEDU, CHEMMANNUR DESOM PUNNAYURKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR.
2. V.V.PUSHPAKARAN S/O.VADASSERY VEETTIL VASU, NJAMANENGADU VADAKKEKKADU VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR.
3. V.G.DINESHKUMAR S/O.GANGADHARAN, VAZHAPPULLY VEEDU, CHEMMANNUR DESOM PUNNAYURKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------
MANAPPURAM ASSETS FINANCE LTD. SHORNUR REP. BY P.R.ANILKUMAR, SHORNUR P.O. 679 121 R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ RR1 BY ADV. SMT.R.S.GEETHA RR1 BY ADV. SMT.P.ANITHA
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & SUNIL THOMAS, JJ.
==============================
F.A.O.No.28 of 2012
==============================
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard.
F.A.O.28/12
2
remains that in an earlier round, the ex parte decree which was passed for non-appearance of the defendants was set aside to enable the defendants to settle the matter. That opportunity was not utilized. It is thereafter that the suit was again listed for trial and ultimately, the defendants were set ex parte. The conduct of the appellants does not persuade for interference by this Court. The appeal, therefore, fails.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge
Sd/SUNIL THOMAS Judge
Sbna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside an ex parte decree.
Whether the appellants' conduct warrants interference by the Court.
V.V. Gangadharan
V.V. Pushpakaran
V.G. Dineshkumar
Manappuram Assets Finance Ltd.
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
