Allowed

Sisco Kuries & Loans Limited v. Ramesh

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016CRP/603/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition directed at a Sub Court's refusal to restore a suit after the plaintiff deposited court fees. The Court held the trial court was justified in refusing the arrears initially but directed restoration now that fees were paid, noting respondents did not appear.

What did the court decide?

This revision petition allowed; Sub Judge directed to take back the plaint to file and proceed with the trial of the suit.

Sisco Kuries & Loans Limited Vs Ramesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRP.No. 603 of 2015 () -----------------------

¶6

I.A NO.3795/2015 & I.A NO.3796/2015 IN O.S NO.1377/2012 OF IIND ADITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

---------------------------------------------

¶9

SISCO KURIES & LOANS LIMITED KUNNAMKULAM DESOM & VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK REP. BY ITS PRESENT MANAGING DIRECTOR A.A.DHARMARAJAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, ALIKKAL HOUSE PORKULA POST, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DIST. PIN 680 542.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SRI.T.R.SEBASTIAN SMT.C.S.RAJANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶12

1. RAMESH S/O.PONNARASSERYVEETTIL, KUMARAN ANJOOR DESOM & VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TLAUK 680 523.

¶13

2. GIRIJA W/O.PONNARASSERY RAMESH, ANJOOR DESOM & VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK 680 523.

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRP.No. 603 of 2015 () -----------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

ANNEXURE A : PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED AS I.A NO.3795/2015.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

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

¶25

C.R.P No.603 of 2015

¶26

============================ Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.1377 of 2012 of II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. Its only request is to direct the trial court to restore the suit to file and allow it to proceed with the suit.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner did not deposit the court fees within time. So the plaint was rejected. It deposited the court fees. But the court refused to take it back to its file. The court was fully justified in doing so. The respondents, who have been served with notice, have not entered appearance. Since the court fees has already been paid, the learned Sub Judge may restore the suit and proceed with the trial of the suit.

¶30

In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The learned Sub Judge is directed to take back the plaint to file and proceed with the trial of the suit.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE

¶33

vdv/18/01/16

Sisco Kuries & Loans Limited v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sisco Kuries & Loans Limited v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Vs Madhu

Narayanathu Sree Bhadrajkali Kshethram Vs Mohanan Pillai

A.Parvathi Amma Vs K.M.Gowri Amma

Thazhey Purayil Khadeejabi Vs Kunnumbrath Sajeevan

M/S.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs Jayakumari L.

A.Sivadasan Vs Advocate Receiver K.P.Mohankumar