High Court dismissed challenge to lower court's dismissal of review petition due to default. Directed petitioner to file restoration and Section 14 application.
Petitioner allowed to file restoration application and Section 14 application; directed to be considered untrammeled by previous order.
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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/15TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1898 of 2016 (O)
I.A. NO.1190/2015 IN IP. NO.3/2014 OF SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
PETITIONER(S):
JAYAMBARARAJ PADUVA, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, "DEEPAM", ARATTUVAZHY, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, DISTRICT COURT ROAD BRANCH, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC. R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S. GOPINATHAN.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP(C).No. 1898 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXHIBIT P1 | COPY OF THE IP NO.3/2014 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN IP NO.3/2014 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IP NO.3/2014 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM KAUVERY HOSPITAL, COIMBATORE. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED FROM MCH, ALAPPUZHA. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2015 PASSED IN IP NO.3/2014 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2016 IN IA NO.1190/2015 IN IP NO.3/2014 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
O.P.(Civil)No.1898 of 2016
============================== Dated this, the 06th day of August 2016.
J U D G M E N T
1.The above petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the court below, dismissing the application for review under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2.It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner filed I.P.No.3/2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. But, that was dismissed for default. He filed I.A.No.1190/2015 to review the order, dismissing the insolvency application for default and the learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. This is being challenged by the petitioner.
3.Shri.S.Gopinathan, Senior Government Pleader appeared for the second respondent.
Adv.Shri.K.Narayanan (Paravur) entered appearance for first respondent.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The remedy of the petitioner is not to file an application
to review the order. He ought to have filed an application
O.P.(C)No.1898 of 2016 : 2 :
to restore the petition dismissed for default. So, under such circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the review is not maintainable and rightly dismissed the application. So, there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the court below. However, the petitioner is given at liberty to file an application to restore the I.P. dismissed for default with delay condonation application if there is any delay and also file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to consider the time taken by him for prosecuting the review petition as well and if such applications are filed, the Sub Judge, Alappuzha is directed to consider those applications untrammeled by the observations made in the impugned order and pass appropriate orders in those applications in accordance with law.
With the above direction and observation, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
[True copy]
Bb
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition challenging a review dismissal dismissal on grounds of maintainability when the petitioner failed to file a restoration application.
The appropriate remedy for a petitioner who challenged the dismissal of an insolvency application on the ground of default.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jayambararaj Paduva
State Bank of Travancore
State of Kerala
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
