Allowed

Haritha v. Jinadev

Kerala HC5 Oct 2017RSA/792/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Regular Second Appeal challenged the dismissal of a prior appeal as time-barred due to an 80-day delay. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower appellate court's order and remitting the matter to allow the appellants to adduce evidence regarding family problems that caused the delay. All interlocutory applications were closed. Quality assessment: ok.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court set aside; I.A.No.819/2015 revived and remitted to court below; parties to bear respective costs; parties to appear on 23.10.2017; interlocutory ap

Haritha Vs Jinadev — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/13TH ASWINA, 1939

¶5

RSA.No. 792 of 2016 (C)

¶6

AGAINST JUDGMENT IN OS 319/2013 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

1. HARITHA W/O.AJITHKUMAR, AGED 36 HARITHA NILAYAM, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (NOW RESIDING AT POLLAYIL HOUSE, (ASWATHY), C.M.C NO.23, CHRERTHALA 688 524)

¶9

2. HAREESH, S/O HARIDAS, AGED 29, HARITHA NILAYAM, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE

¶11

SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN

¶12

SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶14

1. JINADEV, S/O.DIVAKARAN, AGED 50, PANGAPPARAMBIL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 524.

¶15

2. SAJANMON @ SAJAN, S/O.BAHULEYAN, AGED 46, CHANGAREZHATHU HOUSE, NADUVATHU NAGAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 559.

¶16

R1-R2 BY M/S ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A ADV. SMT.M.A.SULFIA

¶17

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶19

................................................................ R.S.A. No. 792 of 2016

¶20

............................................................... Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2017

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This is a case wherein the appeal has been

¶24

thrown out by the lower appellate court on the ground that the appeal was time barred. It is true that there was a delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before the lower appellate court. The court below found that the appellants had failed to prove before the lower appellate court as to what were the family problems faced by the appellants which had allegedly prevented them from filing the appeal in time. The court below dismissed I.A.No.819/2015, and consequently

¶25

dismissed the appeal also.

¶26

R.S.A. 792 of 2016

¶27

-: 2 :-

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the appellants did not get an opportunity to mount the box in order to adduce evidence regarding the family problems faced by the appellants which had prevented them from filing the appeal in time.

¶29

On hearing either side, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the appellants to adduce evidence before the court below regarding the said family problems faced by them. One of the appellants has to be formally examined before the court below. When the delay is of 80 days only, the court below ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter and ought not to have simply thrown out the appeal as time barred. Matters being so, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are liable to be set aside.

¶30

In the result, this Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are set aside. The order in I.A.No.819/2015 of the lower

¶31

R.S.A. 792 of 2016

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

appellate court is set aside. The above said I.A. is revived and it is remitted to the court below along with the appeal. The court below shall pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.819/2015 and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In the nature of this appeal, the parties shall bear their respective costs. The parties shall appear before the lower appellate court on 23.10.2017. All the interlocutory applications in this appeal are closed.

¶34

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶35

ul/-

¶36

// true copy //

¶37

P.S. to Judge.

Haritha v. Jinadev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haritha v. Jinadev

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

P.C.Alexander Vs K.E.Joseph @ Benny

Nalesan and Another Vs Dhanapalan

Paranthillatt Aboobacker Haji Vs K.E.N. Ahammed

Sathyapalan and Others Vs Rajasekharan Nair and Another

Kanapravan Kalliani Vs K. Devi

Chunayan Makkan Joseph Vs the District Collector, Kannur