The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision challenging a District Judge's order allowing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The court held that the reasons given by the defendants were sufficient cause and condoned delay by payment of costs.
The revision petition was dismissed in limine.
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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938
CRP.No. 434 of 2016 ()
CMA 8/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA IA NO. 1257/2006 IN OS 162/2002 of ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
PADMAKUMARI, (64), IKKARAYIL HOUSE, KATTOOR MURI, KALAVOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1. BABURAJ (54) S/O.LATE PARVATHY DEVAKI, THAKIDIVELIYIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
2. GOPI (52) S/O.LATE PARVATHY DEVAKI, THAKIDIVELIYIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
3. SHAJI (42) S/O.LATE PARVATHY DEVAKI, THAKIDIVELIYIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
4. SUNIMOL(47) D/O.LATE PARVATHY DEVAKI, THAKIDIVELIYIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
5. MANOHARAN (62)
6. VALSALA (55) D/O.LATE PARVATHY DEVAKI, THAKIDIVELIYIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
CRP.No. 434 of 2016 ()
7. SYAMALA (60) D/O.LATE PARVATHY DEVAKI, THAKIDIVELIYIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
8. THILAKAMMA (41) D/O.LATE PARVATHY DEVAKI, THAKIDIVELIYIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
9. JEEVAN (44) JEEVA BHAVAN, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
10. JAMES THOMAS(49) ANAKKARUPARAMBU, MANNANCHERRY, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA 688 522.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
C.R.P. No.434 of 2016
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2016
ORDER
The revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in C.M.A.8/2010 of District Court, Alappuzha under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
C.R.P. No.434 of 2016
2
A2 were marked on their side. After considering the evidence, the trial court dismissed all these applications stating that sufficient cause has not been shown. The respondents preferred appeal only against order in I.A.1257/2006 in O.S.162/2002 as C.M.A.8/2010 before the District Court, Alappuzha and the District Judge, Alappuzha by the impugned judgment allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. This order is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this revision petition.
3
C.R.P. No.434 of 2016
C.R.P. No.434 of 2016
4
hospital and nothing preventing others from appearing and contesting the case.
C.R.P. No.434 of 2016
5
So he may be the person who contesting the case on behalf of other defendants. So under such circumstances, the appellate court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the defendants in the suit were justified by sufficient cause in not appearing before the court on the day on which the case was listed for trial and delay in filing the application was condoned on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-, relying on the decision of the apex court in this matter. The apex court in several decisions of this nature has held that, the application to set aside the exparte decree or restore the suit dismissed for default have to be considered liberally and if some reason is given which is making sufficient cause for non-clearance, even if some latches are there, that latches can be condoned by payment of costs to compensate the inconvenience caused to other side and parties must be given an opportunity to meet the case on merit and the right of the parties depending on the stalk involved in the case should not be allowed to be defeated on technical ground of limitation or otherwise. So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellate court had committed any illegality in allowing the application, warranting interference at the hands of this court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further though it was dismissed by a common
C.R.P. No.434 of 2016
6
order, the petitioner can choose to contest one case alone which affects their right in the property.
So under such circumstances, though it was tried as a joint trial, the reasons stated for dismissal of the application has to be considered depending upon the facts of the case and the plaintiffs being the master of the suit can forgo their right to proceed with other cases, that will not affect their right to proceed with the case in which their right have been affected by the exparte decree obtained against them. So under such circumstances, there is no merit in the revision and the same is hereby dismissed in limine .
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
ss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court committed illegality in condoning delay and allowing an application to set aside an ex parte decree.
Whether a revision would be warranted when the appellants only filed an appeal against one of three jointly dismissed applications.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
apex court in several decisions of this natureReferred¶46
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Padmakumari
Baburaj
Gopi
Shaji
Sunimol
Manoharan
K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.Ramakrishnan
Parties & counsel
