The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order refusing to institute a suit by a public servant for non-compliance with Order 33 Rule 6 of the CPC, holding the service of the Government Pleader mandatory.
Appeal dismissed; order of first instance upheld.
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
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 19372
FAO.No. 59 of 2016
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2016 ON I.A.NO.189/15 IN O.S.43 OF 2013 OF SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
J.RAMKUMAR AGED 39 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, ARYAS HOTEL, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT RESIDING AT ANJILIVILAYIL HOUSE, THONALLUR MURI PANDALAM PO, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
ASHOK K.JACOB, AGED 40 YEARS, PADIPURACKAL HOUSE, THITTMEALMURI, CHANGANNUR VILLAGE CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 688 009.
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F.A.O.No.59 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed against an order passed by the court below in an application under Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed the application for non compliance of the Rules thereunder. Reading of the provisions of Order 33 Rule 3 itself show that the compliance of Rule 6 by serving copy on the Government Pleader is a mandatory requirement. Admittedly, that requirement has not been satisfied in this case. This was despite opportunities being afforded to the appellant.
Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
SD/- A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
jes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow an appeal against the dismissal of a suit by a person of humble means for non-compliance of mandatory service requirements under Order 33 Rule 3 of the CPC.
Whether the service of a copy on the Government Pleader as per Order 33 Rule 6 of the CPC is a mandatory requirement.
Whether the appellant's prior opportunity to comply cured the non-compliance.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
J.RAMKUMAR
ASHOK K.JACOB
ANTONY DOMINIC
A. HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
