Dismissed

Dhwajendranath v. O.G.Sheelan

Kerala HC21 Jan 2016FAO/26/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal filed by defendants against an order rejecting their application to set aside an ex parte decree and for condoning a 572-day delay. The court held that the plea of sickness was unsupported by evidence and the delay was due to negligence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-appreciating the negligence of the appellants. No further relief granted.

Dhwajendranath Vs O.G.Sheelan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937

¶6

FAO.No. 26 of 2016 ()

¶7

(COMMON ORDER DATED 28.9.2015 IN IA.NOS.314/15 & 315/15 IN O.S.235/10 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS IN O.S:

¶9

DHWAJENDRANATH.S S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, GEETHA NIVAS, MARUTHAMNPALLY MURI POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

GEETHAKUMARI W/O. DHWIJENDRANATH, GEETHA NIVAS, MARUTHAMNPALLY MURI POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR

¶12

SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL SMT.V.BEENA SRI.SAJITH C.GEORGE SMT.V.DEEPA

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN OS:

¶14

SHEELAN

¶15

S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SANTHI NIVAS, KOTTAPPURAM PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.

¶16

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶18

----------------------------------F.A.O.No.26 of 2016

¶19

----------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Antony Dominic, J.

¶22

Appellants, who are the defendants in O.S.235/10 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara are aggrieved by the order dismissing I.A.Nos.314/15 and 315/15, which were filed for setting aside the ex parte decree passed on 15.6.2013 and for condonation of delay of 572 days in filing such application respectively. In so far as the prayer for condonation of delay is concerned, case of the appellants was that they were in Bangalore and that while so, the first appellant was infected by Jaundice and as a result, they could not contact the lawyer when the case came up for consideration before the trial court. However, to substantiate the plea that the first appellant was infected by Jaundice, not even a medical certificate was produced. In other words, the case of sickness of the first appellant was totally unsubstantiated. They had also no explanation whatsoever for the delay of 572 days in applying for setting aside the ex parte decree.

¶23

FAO.26/16

¶24

¶25

All these, therefore, show total negligence and callousness on the part of the appellants, which resulted in the ex parte decree and the delay. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the court below. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/A. HARIPRASAD, Judge. kkb.

¶27

/True copy/

¶28

PS to Judge

Dhwajendranath v. O.G.Sheelan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhwajendranath v. O.G.Sheelan

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

Sandya Ajith Vs Kishore

M/S Icici Bank Ltd. Vs Sophiyamma Mathew

Anila Kanal Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary, K.S.E.Board Vs v.J.Antony

N.K.Nadessan Vs Sabu Cherian

K.P.S.C Vs Dr.Reshmi Pushpan