Allowed

V.K. Ebrahim v. Pazhakotu Mayan

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016FAO/244/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an ex parte decree in a money suit. The court granted the appellant an opportunity to contest on merits, conditional upon payment of ₹25,000 costs. Failure to comply would result in confirmation of the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte decree in O.S. No. 15/2007 set aside. Appellant to pay ₹25,000 costs as condition to contest suit on merits.

V.K. Ebrahim Vs Pazhakotu Mayan — 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 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶6

FAO.No. 244 of 2015 ()

¶7

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.9.2015 IN I.A.NO.474/2014 IN O.S.NO.15/2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SUB COURT, THALASSERY)

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

¶9

V.K. EBRAHIM, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. MOOSA, PAVINAS MANZIL, PAZHAYANIRATHU, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

PAZHAKOTTU MAYAN, AGED58 YEARS, S/O. KUTTYIATH, MANGATTIDAM AMSOM, KURUMBUKKAL DESOM, P.O.MANGATTIDAM, KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 643.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶14

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶16

----------------------F.A.O.No.244 of 2015

¶17

----------------------Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2016

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Chitambaresh, J.

¶20

An order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree in a suit for realisation of money is impugned. The failure to produce the medical records evidencing the illness of the appellant/defendant is the reason stated.

¶21

The appellant submits that he had produced as many as 17 documents in the court below. But none of the documents have been proved by examining witnesses to prove the illness.

¶22

We are inclined to grant an opportunity to the appellant to contest the suit on merits. This can however be on terms since there is some laches on the part of the appellant.

¶23

The ex parte decree in O.S.No.15/2007 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thalassery is set aside. This is subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

i) The appellant shall pay a sum of ` 25,000/- as costs to the counsel for the respondent in

¶25

¶26

FAO.No.244/2015

¶27

this Court within a period of three weeks from today.

¶28

ii) The ex parte decree will stand set aside and the court below will dispose of the suit on merits within three months in case the condition (i) is complied with.

¶29

iii) The impugned order will stand confirmed and the appeal dismissed on the failure of the appellant to comply with the condition (i) as directed above.

¶30

The First Appeal against Order is disposed of as above.

¶31

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶32

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶33

nj/15.11.2016

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

P.S. to Judge.

V.K. Ebrahim v. Pazhakotu Mayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K. Ebrahim v. Pazhakotu Mayan

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

K.a.Indudharan Vs Shakthi Finance Ltd.

Moideenkutty Vs Kunhimoosa

M/S.Crown Maritime India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Bachy Solentanche Ltd.

Kuttamassery Chalakkal Mahallu Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

Henkel Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs G.Hariharan

Nabeesa, W/O.Late Kareem Vs Nabeesa, W/O.Sheriff