Allowed

Kunnath Narayanan v. K.Sumitha Geethanath

Kerala HC17 Oct 2018CRP/606/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against an order condoning delay in setting aside an ex-parte decree in a specific performance suit. The High Court upheld the appellate order with a modification enhancing costs and directing deposit of balance amount.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced cost to Rs. 50,000/- and directed respondent to deposit balance Rs. 35,000/- within one month or order of appeal to be set aside.

Kunnath Narayanan Vs K.Sumitha Geethanath — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018/25TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No.606 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-08-2013 IN CMA NO.18/2012 OF THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARAGOD.

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05-06-2012 IN I.A.NOS.623 AND 624/2011 IN OS NO.18/2001 of SUB COURT, HOSDURG

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT:

¶9

KUNNATH NARAYANAN AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.CHANDAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, KALYAN ROAD, BALLA P.O., KASARGODE.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶12

K.SUMITHRA GEETHANATH

¶13

AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.GEETHANATH, RESIDING NEAR DURGA HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.KANHANGAD, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD-671 315.

¶14

BY ADVS. SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY SRI.M.RETHEESH

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.R.P.No.606 of 2013

:: 2 ::

O R D E R

This Revision is filed against the order dated 29.8.2013 in C.M.A.No.18 of 2012 of the District Court Kasaragod.

¶20

A suit for specific performance was filed, which was decreed exparte. Later on, a deed of conveyance was executed in accordance with the decree for specific performance in execution of the decree. An application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed subsequently with a petition to condone the delay of 3328 days. Though the lower court refused to condone the delay by dismissing the application, it was allowed by the Appellate Court in CMA.No.18 of 2012, but on conditions enumerated in the order as condition

¶21

Nos.1 to 6. This order is under challenge in this Revision.

¶22

It was submitted that the suit was filed for

¶23

C.R.P.No.606 of 2013

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

specific performance of a contract for sale. Notice of the suit was received in time by the defendant. According to her, her husband was conducting and defending the suit for and on her behalf. But, later on, he became mentally abnormal and went away from his place of residence and she was in search of her husband for several years and detected only after eight years and hence she could not proceed with the suit because of the said reason. It is further alleged that the contract relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff is a forged one and she had signed on some blank stamp papers on a vitiating circumstance. The learned District Judge had also noticed the consideration offered and observed that while taking into consideration the prevailing market value it cannot be accepted that a property having an extent of 2 acres 23 cents was agreed to

¶26

be sold for a meagre amount of `1,30,000/-.

¶27

It is settled that when there is sufficient

¶28

reason the court is bound to condone the delay, but when there is no sufficient reason, the Court has to

¶29

C.R.P.No.606 of 2013

¶30

:: 4 ::

¶31

exercise its jurisdiction so as to promote justice and not to defeat. The reason advanced by the respondent/defendant that her husband was looking after all the affairs of the case and he became mentally abnormal and went away from her house and she could not trace out him for a long period of eight years would be a sufficient reason. Even if it is assumed that the long delay cannot be condoned on that simple reason, it is well within the

¶32

jurisdiction of the court to exercise its discretion so as to advance justice.

¶33

Hence, I am of the view that the order passed by the First Appellate Court can be sustained with a modification by enhancing the cost of 15,000/- to 50,000/- as ordered as condition No.1. It is also submitted that all the conditions embodied in the order were already complied with and as such, the balance amount of `35,000/- shall be deposited or paid by the respondent/defendant to the party concerned within one month from today, failing which, the Revision Petition will stand as allowed

¶34

C.R.P.No.606 of 2013

¶35

:: 5 ::

¶36

by setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court and by restoring the order passed by the learned Munsiff in the matter. No further order as to costs.

Sd/

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

ahz/

Kunnath Narayanan v. K.Sumitha Geethanath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunnath Narayanan v. K.Sumitha Geethanath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viswambharan Pillai Vs Mathukutty

J & P. Constructions Vs Ambujakshi Amma

P.v.Sasidharan Vs Nirman

Joy Xavier Vs Unnikrishnan Nair

P.P.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

K.R Ushasree Vs Sujir Ganesh Naik