Allowed

M/S. Periyanayaki Project Private Limited v. Raveendran

Kerala HC17 Nov 2016OP(C)/848/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 to challenge orders dismissing applications for restoration of a default-dismissed suit. Court relied on a Division Bench judgment, set aside the lower court orders, and allowed restoration conditionally upon payment of Rs. 5,000 costs.

What did the court decide?

Applications I.A.Nos.610/2013, 611/2013 and 1054/2010 set aside; suit O.S.167/2008 restored subject to payment of Rs.5,000 costs within two weeks.

M/S. Periyanayaki Project Private Limited Vs Raveendran — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/26TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 848 of 2014 (O)

¶6

-------------------------I.A. NOS.610/2013 AND 611/2013 IN I.A. NO.1054/2010 IN O.S. NO.167/2008 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

M/S. PERIYANAYAKI PROJECT PVT. LTD., RAGHAVEERA AVENUE, 13, CHENNAI-86, REPRESENTED BY LAND PROCUREMENT MANAGER, CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SIVA VILAS, VELLORKONAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.RAM MOHAN.G., SRI.MANU V..

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

RAVEENDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, KOLATHARA HOUSE, NEDUMBASSERY MURI, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 585.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.K.UNNIKRISHNAN.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

OP(C).No. 848 of 2014 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

P1 : COPY OF THE IA NO.611 OF 2013 IN IA NO.1054 OF 2010 IN OS NO.167/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶19

P2 : COPY OF THE IA NO.610 OF 2013 IN IA NO.1054 OF 2010 IN OS NO.167 OF 2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶20

P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.6.2013 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, KOCHI IN IA NO.610 OF 2013 IN IA NO.1054 OF 2010 IN OS NO.167 OF 2008.

¶21

P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.6.2013 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, KOCHI IN IA NO.611 OF 2013 IN IA NO.1054 OF 2010 IN OS NO.167 OF 2008.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

O.P.(C) No.848 of 2014

¶28

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

The petitioner herein as plaintiff filed O.S.167/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi for Specific Performance of the contract of agreement of sale dated 30/01/2016 entered into between them and respondent herein. When the suit was dismissed for default, the petitioner filed I.A.1054/2010 in O.S.167/2008 for restoration of the suit dismissed for default and that was also dismissed for nonprosecution due to non communication of the progress of the application from their counsel. Thereafter, they filed I.A.611/2013 to restore I.A.1054/2010 in O.S.167/2008 along with delay condonation application to condone the delay of 276 days as I.A.610/2010, both applications were dismissed by the court below by Exts.P3 and P4 orders respectively and they are under challenge in this petition.

¶32

The respondent entered appearance through Sri.V.K.Unnikrishnan.

¶33

When the application came up for hearing today, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in similar matters, this court

¶34

O.P.(C) No.848 of 2014

¶35

¶36

has disposed of the case on the basis of the orders passed by the Division Bench in similar matters and the same yardstick can be applied here also. The counsel for the respondent also has no objection for the same.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed suit for specific performance which was dismissed for default and thereafter he filed I.A.1054/2010 to restore the same, but that was also dismissed for default, thereafter they filed I.A.610/2013 and 611/2013 to restore those applications with delay condonation application. But that was dismissed by the court below, and that is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.

¶38

In a similar matter this court in FAO No.249/2014 and other connected FAO's a Division Bench of this court by a common judgment dated 25.06.2015 allowed the appeals which were filed against the order dismissing the application for restoration of the suits dismissed for default on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. Relying on the same, this court also disposed of similar matters in O.P.(C) 4249/2011 in respect of O.S.89/2007 of Sub Court, Kochi. So this court feels that the same yardstick can be applied in this case also.

¶39

So the application is allowed and the order passed by the court below dismissing the applications I.A.Nos.610/2013, 611/2013 and

¶40

O.P.(C) No.848 of 2014

¶41

¶42

1054/2010 in O.S.167/2008 are set aside and allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the counsel for the respondent within a period of two weeks from today and if the cost is paid and proof of payment of cost is produced before the court below, then the court below is directed to allow those applications and restore the suit O.S.167/2007 to file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. If the cost is not paid and the proof of payment of cost is not produced before the court below, then the order dismissing the applications and the suit dismissed for default will remain in force.

¶43

With the above direction and observation the petition is disposed of.

¶44

Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court immediately.

¶45

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

P.A. to Judge

¶48

M/S. Periyanayaki Project Private Limited v. Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Periyanayaki Project Private Limited v. Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ponnappan Pillai Vs Padmavathy Amma

Subash Vs Sakunthala

C.V. Gopinathan Vs Sree Durga Bhagavathikkavu

Radhakrishnan Vs Saji Johnson

Sadiya S.Unnithan Vs Santhosh Kumar N.V.

Bena @ Scolastica Vs Jijo Augusthy