Dismissed

P.Rajeevan v. v.B.Devadas

Kerala HC18 Feb 2016RFA/70/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a regular first appeal where the primary issue was condoning a delay of 3131 days. The appellant claimed reliance on assurances from the opposing party's governing body prevented him from pursuing the suit earlier. The court found the explanation lacking and dismissed the delay petition, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.

What did the court decide?

Delay petition dismissed; Appeal dismissed.

P.Rajeevan Vs v.B.Devadas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

RFA.No. 70 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 95/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 25.1.07 APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:

¶7

P.RAJEEVAN, PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SREEKHANDKARNA KSHETHRA YOGAM KANJIRAMCHIRA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS SRI.P.REJINARK SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN SMT.A.MINI JOSEPH KUM.M .ANJU THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 6:

¶10

V.B.DEVADAS, RESIDING AT SIVASTHUTHY, POONTHOPPU, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006.

¶11

K.SUMA, RESIDING AT SIVASTHUTHY, POONTHOPPU, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006.

¶12

S.N.THYAGARAJAN @ SHAJI, SECRETARY, OFFICE OF SREEKHANDAKARNA KSHETHRAYOGAM KANJIRAMCHIRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 007.

¶13

V.E.VISHWAN, CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF SREEPADAM FUNDS KANJIRAMCHIRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 007.

¶14

K.N.PAVITHRAN, BOARD MEMBER, OFFICE OF SREEPADAM FUNDS KANJIRAMCHIRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 007.

¶15

M.T.PAVITHRAN, BOARD MEMBER, OFFICE OF SREEPADAM FUNDS KANJIRAMCHIRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 007. (died)

¶16

DEVAYANI, W/O M.T.PAVITHRAN, PUTHUPARAMBU, KALAPURA WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

BAIJU, S/O M.T.PAVITHRAN, PUTHUPARAMBU, KALAPURA WARD.

¶18

S. PUSHKARAN, BOARD MEMBER, OFFICE OF SREEPADAM FUNDS, KANJIRAMCHIRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶19

(7TH AND 8TH RESPONDENTS HEREIN ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 6TH RESPONDENT.)

¶20

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln.57 of 2016 & R.F.A.No.70 of 2016

¶23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Antony Dominic, J.

¶26

This is an application filed to condone the delay of 3131 days in filing this appeal.

¶27

We heard the counsel for the petitioner and considered the submissions made.

¶28

The delay is sought to be explained by an affidavit of the petitioner, which show that he had received notice in the suit, entered appearance and filed his written statement. According to him, however, depending on the assurance given by the governing body members and the subsequent Presidents of Sree Khandakarna Kshethra Yogam, he did not take any interest in pursuing the suit. It is stated that even after receipt of notice in the E.P., he did the same thing believing the assurance of the aforesaid persons that the matter would be settled. However, realising that there was no settlement and that a personal decree was passed against him, he says that he applied for certified copy and finally filed this appeal with a delay of 3131 days.

¶29

R.F.A.No.70 of 2016

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

According to us, there is no material whatsoever to

¶32

substantiate the aforesaid averments. The delay has been explained in very general terms and considering the long and inordinate delay, we

¶33

are not inclined to condone the same.

¶34

Delay petition is dismissed and the appeal will also stand dismissed.

¶35

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶36

Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶37

jes

P.Rajeevan v. v.B.Devadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajeevan v. v.B.Devadas

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

The Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Irinjalakuda Vs Santhosh Devassy

C.K. Sanil Vs Antony

C.K.Sanil Vs Antony

The Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs P.Shaym

Fr. Geevarghese Vallikattil Vs St.George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox

Mary Kutty Vs Sadasivan