Allowed

Pushpalatha v. Sindhu

Kerala HC28 Jan 2016OP(C)/1032/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order of the Additional Munsiff Court which had allowed an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The Court held that the delay between the respondent's knowledge of the decree and the filing of the application was unexplained. The Court also found that service on the respondent's counsel was valid.

What did the court decide?

The Original petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

Pushpalatha Vs Sindhu — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/8TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 1032 of 2015 (O)

¶6

--------------------------(IA.NO.806/2014 IN OS.NO.272/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF :

¶8

PUSHPALATHA,

¶9

D/O.KAMALAMMA, VIJAYA NIVAS, NAKALA LANE, KUZHIKKATTUMURI, VEERANAKAVU, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS FOLLOWS.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶11

SMT.K.R.RIJA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS :

¶13

1. SINDHU, D/O.SANTHAKUMARI, TC NO.43/1825, VALLAKADAVU, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VEERANNAKAVU VILLAGE,

¶18

VEERANNAKAVU, PIN-695 001

¶19

5. SUJITHKUMAR,

¶20

S/O.K.SUDHAKARAN, TC 44/1825(1), MUTTATHARA PEN. JN. VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.

¶21

6. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.K.SUDHAKARAN, TC 44/1825(1), MUTTATHARA PEN. JN. VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.

2/-

sts

-2-

OP(C).NO.1032/2015

¶26

7. N.SANTHAKUMARI, D/O.CHEMBAKUTTI, TC 44/1825(1), MUTTATHARA PEN. JN. VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.

¶27

R1,R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA VINOD

¶28

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

sts

¶30

OP(C).No. 1032 of 2015 (O)

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶33

EXT.P1.	THE COPY OF IA 806/2014.
EXT.P2.	THE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO IA 806/2014.
EXT.P3.	THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2014 IN IA NO.806/2014.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: -----------------------------------------

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶40

O.P.(C)No.1032 of 2015

¶41

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.272 of 2010 of Additional Munsiff Court, Nedumangad. An ex parte decree was passed on 30.1.2012. On 11.2.2014 the first respondent/5^th defendant filed I.A.No.806 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte decree after condoning the delay of 742 days. The learned Munsiff has allowed it. This is challenged.

¶44

Heard.

¶45

The suit was dismissed on 18.2.2011. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1029 of 2011 to restore the suit to file. The learned Munsiff has observed that no notice was served on the first respondent in the application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent's counsel received notice and that was as good as a service on the first respondent. The submission of the learned counsel appears to be correct. The authority of the counsel of the first respondent to receive notice on her behalf is not challenged. Service of notice on him was service on her.

¶46

In the affidavit filed by the first respondent in support of her application there is an unequivocal statement that she came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree on 6.2.2013. The application to set aside the decree was filed on 11.2.2014. There is

¶47

O.P.(C)No.1032 of 2015 2

¶48

no explanation for the delay between 6.2.2013 and 11.2.2014. Atleast on this ground the learned Munsiff should have dismissed the first respondent's application to condone the delay. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶49

In the result, this Original petition is allowed. The impugned

¶50

order is set aside.

¶51

Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶52

cms

¶53

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Pushpalatha v. Sindhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpalatha v. Sindhu

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

V.K.Abdul Salam Vs Nabeesa

Soman Vs Noufal

A.K.Asharaff Vs Joseph

Ananda Panicker Alex @ A.K. Alex Vs Krishna Panicker Radhakrishnan

M. Abdul Latheef Vs Hareesh

Nmr Siraj Vs City Plaza Shop Owners Association