Sukumaran v. Jayapal
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of no-result applications. The court set aside the ex parte decree and the impugned common order, granting the appellant one final opportunity to contest the suit subject to payment of costs.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order and ex parte decree set aside on condition of paying Rs. 3,000 costs; parties to appear on 16/8/2015.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2015/15TH ASHADHA, 193
FAO.No. 86 of 2015 () ----------------------
(AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.5352 OF 2013 AND I.A.NO.5395/2013 IN OS NO.338 OF 2012 DATED 18/12/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB JUDGE,IRINJALAKUDA)
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
SUKUMARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KAVULAPPARA HOUSE, MURINGOOR THEKKUMURI VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAILWAY QUARTERS COLONY , NO.161/B, KALLAMKULANGARA DESAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------
JAYAPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, "KARUNA" HOUSE, GREEN GARDEN ROAD MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.D.PAULY
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal to set aside the dismissal of applications to condone delay in setting aside the ex parte decree should be allowed after considering the evidence and interest of justice.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sukumaran
- respondent
Jayapal
Coram
Thottathil B. Radhakanathan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court