Dismissed

Sreekumar v. Krishnan Potty

Kerala HC4 Jan 2016OP(C)/3166/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In O.P(C).No. 3166 of 2015, the petitioner sought to enlarge time for depositing costs of a set-aside application against a decree ex parte. The High Court of Kerala held that Article 227 did not apply, directing the petitioner to file an application before the trial court instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application before trial court; Original Petition dismissed.

Sreekumar Vs Krishnan Potty — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 3166 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST O.S NO.119/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

--------------

¶9

SREEKUMAR AGED 41 YEARS

¶10

S/O.RAJAPPAN ACHARI, RESIDING AT KANNAMPALLIL VEEDU PUTHUKUNDAM MURI KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶12

SMT.THARA THAMBAN

SMT.K.G.SAROJINI

RESPONDENT(S):

KRISHNAN POTTY

AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN POTTY RESIDING AT CHEMPAKASSERIL, THULAMPARAMBU CENTRE HARIPAD VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 514.

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(C).No. 3166 of 2015 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

-----------------------EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.119/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT AT MAVELIKKARA.

¶22

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.379/2008 IN O.S.NO.119/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT AT MAVELIKKARA.

¶23

EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.380/2008 IN O.S.NO.119/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT.

¶24

EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2009 IN I.A.NO.379/2008 IN O.S.NO.119/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT AT MAVELIKKARA.

¶25

EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED AGAINST I.A.790/2009 PETITION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT.

¶26

EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1085/2015 IN I.A.NO.2119/2007 IN O.S.NO.119/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT AT MAVELIKKARA.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶28

------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J. =======================

¶33

¶34

============================

¶35

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioner was defendant in O.S No.119/2005 of Sub Court, Mavelikara. The suit was decreed exparte. On 13.03.2009 the

¶38

court allowed his application to set aside the exparte decree on condition that he should pay cost of `3,000/-. The cost was not paid. Now he has filed this original petition to enlarge the time to deposit the cost.

¶39

Heard.

¶40

The facts of the case do not attract Article 227 of the

¶41

Constitution of India. The petitioner may file an application before the trial court for the same purpose.

¶42

In the result, this original petition is dismissed with the above observation.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE

¶45

vdv/04/01/16

Sreekumar v. Krishnan Potty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar v. Krishnan Potty

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

Maryam K. Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd.

N.Sasidhara Menon Vs Saudamini Amma

Mani Alias Rajendran Vs Thankamani Amma

Haridas Vs Sajith

Devayani Vs Sarojini

T.Bright Vs Chacko