The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an application to condone an 801-day delay in seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree. The court held that the appellant failed to adduce convincing medical evidence to substantiate his claim of illness.
The appeal was dismissed with no merit found.
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 P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/20TH ASWINA, 1939
FAO.No. 162 of 2017 () -----------------------
I.A.NO.673/2016 IN OS NO.148/2012 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 19.7.2017
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
AUGUSTHY S/O.DEVASIA, AGED 75 YEARS, UPPUMAKKAL VADAKKETHOTTIL HOUSE, KADANADU, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM.686 653.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.SOJAN JAMES
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N. Ravindran & Devan Ramachandran, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
F.A.O.No.162 of 2017
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th October, 2017
JUDGMENT
P.N.Ravindran, J.
This appeal arises from the order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thodupuzha on 19.7.2017 dismissing I.A.Nos.673 and 674 of 2016 in O.S.No.148 of 2012 which are applications filed by the appellant herein under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in the suit after condoning the delay of 801 days in filing the former application.
2
appellant did not file an application to have the ex-parte decree set aside in time. In view of the fact that he had earlier been set ex-parte and the written statement was filed only after the order setting him ex-parte was set aside and as the case had also been listed before the Adalath and thereafter the parties were referred to mediation, the appellant could not have pleaded ignorance of the fact that the suit was listed for trial.
3
appellant and dismissed the application.
(12) SCC 649] after a survey of the case law on the point held as follows:
“22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.
b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had t the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non - serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non - challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”
4
application to condone the delay appears to have been drafted on the premise that condonation of delay of 801 days in filing the application to set aside exparte decree passed by the trial court is a routine matter. The court below was therefore in our opinion perfectly right in holding that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 801 days in filing the application under Order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(P.N. Ravindran, Judge)
(Devan Ramachandran, Judge)
kav/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should condone an 801-day delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree.
Whether the appellant adduced sufficient cause for the inordinate delay by proving medical indisposition.
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to show sufficient cause for delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and OthersApplied¶28
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others [2013 (12) SCC 649] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Augusthy S/o. Devasia
Raveendran Nair Churuli Puthenpurayil
Mallika W/o. Raveendran Nair
P.N. Ravindran
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
