The High Court of Kerala dismissed a first appeal against an order rejecting an application for enlargement of time to pay court costs. The court noted the appeal was adjourned due to unserved notice on an additional respondent and found no merit to interfere on merits given the original cost order.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937
FAO.No. 243 of 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.351/06 IN O.S. 560/2001 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 30-06-2006
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5.:
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS.:
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F.A.O.No.243 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
O.S.560/01 was decreed by the Ist Additional Sub Court, Thrissur against the appellants who remained ex parte. That order was set aside in I.A.351/06 filed by the appellants. This was by order dated 21.6.2006 and
the condition imposed was that the appellants should pay cost of Rs.2,000/- within seven days of the order. That condition was not complied with. Subsequently, I.A.351/06 was filed for enlargement of time. That was dismissed by the impugned order. It is aggrieved by this order, the appeal was filed.
F.A.O.No.243 of 2006
: 2 :
order passed by the court imposing cost while setting aside the ex parte decree.
We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE
jes
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the dismissal of an application for enlargement of time to pay court costs should be entertained.
VANAJA and others
VIJAYALAKSHMI and others
ANTONY DOMINIC
A.HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
