Disposed

Praveen Kumar v. Antony

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016FAO/162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court identified a procedural irregularity where the trial court dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte decree before entertaining applications for impleadment. The appellate court impleaded additional parties, conditioned pending relief on payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

IA Nos. 3399/2015, 3400/2015 and 781/2014 allowed subject to payment of costs to counsel; IA No. 782/2014 remitted to lower court for hearing upon payment.

Praveen Kumar Vs Antony — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶6

FAO.No. 162 of 2016 ()

¶7

I.A.Nos.782/2014 and 781/2014 IN OS.No.922/2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 AND 3:

¶9

PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KUMKARAN, NOW RESIDING AT 66, 4TH CROSS,LAL BAGH ROAD, RRMR LAY OUT,

¶10

CHAMARAJAPETTA, BANGALORE 560 027

¶11

SARASWATHY AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. PRAVEEN KUMAR, RESIDING AT 66,4TH CROSS, LAL BAGH ROAD, RRMR LAY OUT,

¶12

CHAMARAJAPETTA,BANGALORE 560 027

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN

¶14

SRI.S.SUJITH

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS-DEFENDANT 2 & 4:

¶16

ANTONY

¶17

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, KIZHAKKOOODAN VEETTIL MATHEW EDAKUNNY VILLAGE, THALORE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001

¶18

SAMUEL ANTONY

¶19

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY,

¶20

NOW RESIDING AT 84/2 (3RD MANE, 4TH CROSS) C K C GARDEN, LAL BHAG ROAD, BANGALORE 560 093

(P.T.O)

F.A.O.No.162/2016

: 2 :

1. ORIENTAL GENERAL TRADING ROAD INDIA (P) LTD NO.135, BRIGADE TOWERS 7TH FLOOR, 708, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATA 560 025

¶25

REPRESENTED BY SAMUEL ANTONY (Address corrected)

¶26

ORIENTAL GENERAL TRADING INDIA (P) LTD., NO.66, C.K.C. GARDEN, MY SCHOOL ROAD, 4^th CROSS, BANGALORE -2 NOW REPRESENTED BY PRAVEEN KUMAR.

¶27

(ADDRESS OF R3 IS CORRECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 7.9.2016 IN I.A.NO.976/2016)

¶28

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B..KRISHNAN (CAVEATOR)

¶29

SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN

¶30

SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶31

SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.JOSEPH FREEMAN.

¶32

R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI VARGHESE

¶33

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2016, ALONG WITH OPC. 1669/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶35

----------------------F.A.O.No.162 of 2016 & O.P.(C) No.1669 of 2016

¶36

----------------------Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Chitambaresh, J.

¶39

There is a procedural irregularity in the court below in first dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and then considering the application for impleading in the said application. I.A.Nos.3399/2015 and 3400/2015 were filed for impleading in I.A.No.782/2014 filed to set aside the ex parte decree. I.A.No.781/2014 was also filed to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

¶40

We do feel that the court below should have condoned the delay as well as allowed the impleadment. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree should have been dealt with thereafter. We are also satisfied about the reasons stated for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

¶41

We allow I.A.Nos.3399/2015 and 3400/2015 and I.A.No.781/2014 in O.S.No.922/2010. This is of course subject to the following conditions:-

¶42

¶43

FAO.162/2016 & OP(C) No.1669/2016

¶44

i) The appellants shall pay to Mr.Sabu George, Advocate appearing for the respondents a sum of ` 25,000/- as costs within one month from today.

¶45

ii) The orders impugned will stand confirmed on the omission of the appellants to pay the costs within the time stipulated.

¶46

The court below shall deal with I.A.No.782/2014 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the event of the appellants paying the costs as directed above.

¶47

The First Appeal from Orders and the Original Petition are disposed of as above.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶50

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶51

nj/02.11.2016

Praveen Kumar v. Antony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. Antony

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

Uppan Makkan Mercy Sam Vs M/S. Icds Limited

Thathur Jama Masjid Committee Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

Suresh Kumar Sukamarapilla Vs Vellora Vasanthan

Raphimon M.E Vs Kerala State Waqf Board

George Vs North Malabar Gramin Bank

Cheruvalath Yousuf Vs Peedikayilakath Abdul Rasheed