Vinod v. Mumtaz
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, directed the Munsiff Court to expedite disposal of applications to set aside an ex parte decree and stay execution proceedings to prevent prejudice to the petitioner.
What did the court decide?
Direction to expedite disposal of I.A. 816/2016 and 818/2016 within one month and stay execution proceedings E.P. No. 16/2015.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/19TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1775 of 2016 (O)
OS 244/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY.
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
VINOD, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PALAMATTATHIL KAROTTU HOUSE, MADAPALLY MURI, MADAPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPSONDENT:
MUMTAZ K.H., AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. K.A SUDHEER, RAZAMEER MANZIL, THRICKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, THRICKODITHANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686 105.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the lower court to expedite disposal of applications to set aside an ex parte decree.
Whether the execution proceedings should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the set aside application.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Vinod
- respondent
Mumtaj K.H.
Coram
K. Ramakrishnan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court