Dismissed

Unnikrishnan Mandalamkode v. Bhaskaran

Kerala HC10 Feb 2017CRP/527/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a first defendant challenging an appellate order that set aside an ex parte decree. The Court held that the revision petition lacked valid reasons and that the plaintiff, not the defendant, was the aggrieved party. The petition was dismissed for not disclosing a cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Unnikrishnan Mandalamkode Vs Bhaskaran — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/21ST MAGHA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 527 of 2015 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.2.2015 IN C.M.A.NO.11/2014 IN I.A.NOS.285/2013 & 286/2013 IN O.S.NO.131/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF OTTAPPALAM.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN MANDALAMKODE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, KUTTIYAMPADAM, POTTASSERY PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KALLAMKULAM, POTTASSERY PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 598.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.ABHILASH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 TO 6.:

¶11

BHASKARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT MANDALAMKODE HOUSE, AKTHETHARA AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 008.

¶12

KUNHILAKSHMI, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.MANDALAMKODE AYYAPPAN AND MALATHE MALU, RESIDING AT APPUKATTEMARE (H), POTTASSERY AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 598.

¶13

JANAKI (DIED), MANDALAMKODE, RESIDING AT KUTTIYAMPADAM, POTTASSERY AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 598.

¶14

SULOCHANA, W/O.KALIYAPPAN, MANDALAMKODE, RESIDING AT KUTTIYAMPADAM, POTTASSERY AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 598, NOW RESIDING AT METTUKATTU VEEDU, AVANASI PO, COIMBATORE-641 018.

¶15

KUNHIMALU, KANAKATH HOUSE, AMBANKUNNU, POTTASSERY AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 598.

¶16

THANKAMANI, MELUVEETTIL, KALLAMKULAM, POTTASSERY AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 598.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) R2,R5,R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.Somarajan, J.

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------C.R.P. No.527 of 2015 (A)

¶21

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2017

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision is filed by the first defendant challenging the order dated 7.2.2015 in C.M.A.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam. An exparte decree was passed in O.S.No.131 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mannarkkad against the second defendant. Later on the second defendant filed I.A.Nos.285 of 2013 and 286 of 2013 for setting aside the exparte decree as against him and also for condoning the delay caused in preferring the application for setting aside the exparte decree on the ground that he was abroad at the relevant time and no notice was received by him in that suit. Though those two applications were dismissed by the trial court, it was reversed by the first appellate court by allowing C.M.A.No.11 of 2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the first defendant preferred this revision.

¶24

C.R.P. No.527 of 2015 (A)

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

Heard Sri.Abhilash P.T., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/first defendant, and Sri.P.K.Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/second defendant.

¶27

This revision is filed by the first defendant challenging an order passed by the first appellate court allowing the applications submitted by the second defendant for setting aside the exparte decree and for condoning the delay caused. It is not at all discernible how the first defendant is aggrieved by the said order. The plaintiff did not come with any revision. The suit was initially decreed as exparte against the second defendant, which was sought to be set aside by the second defendant by filing an application and that was allowed. This would show that the plaintiff would be the aggrieved person. It is not discernible how the first defendant, being an opponent against the plaintiff in the suit, is aggrieved by the said order.

¶28

C.R.P. No.527 of 2015 (A)

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

In fact, the revision is filed without any valid reason and without having a proper understanding of the facts and legal position.

¶31

Hence, the Revision is liable to be dismissed and I do so.

¶32

No order as to costs.

¶33

P. Somarajan Judge

¶34

ahz/

Unnikrishnan Mandalamkode v. Bhaskaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan Mandalamkode v. Bhaskaran

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

Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala

Laliyamma Vs Merin. J

Finu Vs Binoy P.M

Muraleedharan Vs Sivaprasad

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohammed Kunhi A.K.

Indira Sankar Vs Uma Shiva Raman