Allowed

Thilakaraj v. Rani

Kerala HC6 Feb 2018OP(C)/176/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court, exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, intercepted the impugned order and judgment of the Sub Court, Cherthala which denied condonation of a 19-day delay biasing dismissal of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The High Court set aside the lower court's order, cononed the delay, restored the appeal, directed the lower court to decide it on merits without delay,

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and judgment of the Sub Court dismissing the condonation application and the main appeal were set aside. The delay was condoned, and the C.M.A. was restored to the Sub Court for dis

Thilakaraj Vs Rani — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 176 of 2018 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

THILAKARAJ, PANICKAMPARAMBU VEEDU, VARANAM MURI, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN.

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

RANI, W/O. SEBASTIAN, VALATHUKARIYILAYA PANICKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, VARANAM MURI, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. PIN.688 001.

¶11

BY ADVS SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP SRI.BIJISH B.TOM SMT.NEVIS CASSANDRA L CAXTON LORETTA SRI.JACOB TOMLIN VARGHESE SMT.BABY SONIA SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2018 ALONG WITH OP(C) 333/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Hr...

¶14

OP(C).No. 176 of 2018 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF IA 970/2016 IN C.M.A.30/2016 TOGETHER WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.12.16. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN C.M.A. 30/2016 DATED 17.12.2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN CMA 30/16 & IA 970/16 DATED 20.9.17. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 970/16 IN CMA 30/2016 DATED 29.11.17 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT CHERTHALA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 30/16 DT. 29.11.2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT CHERTHALA.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE.

Hr.....

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶24

¶25

O.P.(C) Nos.176 & 333 of 2018

¶26

----------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The prayers in these Original Petitions (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :

¶29

(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P1 to P5 and peruse them ;

¶30

(ii) Set aside Exhibit-P4 order in I.A.No.970/2016 in C.M.A.No.30/2016 dated 29.11.2017 and the judgment dated 29.11.2017 in C.M.A.No.30/2016 ;

¶31

(iii) allow I.A.No.970/2016 in C.M.A.No.30/2016 and direct the Sub Court, Cherthala, to consider C.M.A.No.30/2016 on merits and pass a judgment on merits ;

¶32

(iv) stay all further proceedings in execution of the ex-parte decree in O.S.No.531/2002 pending final disposal of the above O.P.(C) ;

¶33

(v) award costs of the petitioner

¶34

(vi) issue such other order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶35

The four petitioners in O.P.(C) No.333 of 2018 and the sole petitioner in O.P.(C) No.176 of 2018 are five among the seven defendants in O.S.No.531 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Cherthala. The above petitioners have filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal C.M.A.No.30 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Cherthala, along with

¶36

O.P.(C) Nos.176 &333/18

¶37

: :2::

¶38

I.A.No.970 of 2016 dated 20.9.2017 to condone the delay of 19 days in filing that C.M.A. But the said application to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the said C.M.A. has been rejected by the lower appellate court as per the impugned Exhibit-P4 order dated 29.11.2017. Consequently the lower appellate court has also passed judgment dated 29.11.2017 dismissing the main matter in the C.M.A. solely on the ground of dismissal of the delay condonation application.

¶39

After having heard both sides, this Court is of the considered view that having regard to the fact that the delay involved is only 19 days, the same could be condoned and the impugned orders could be thus interdicted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Exhibit-P4 order dated 29.11.2017 rendered by the Sub Court, Cherthala on I.A.No.970 of 2016 in C.M.A.No.30 of 2016 will stand set aside and correspondingly, it is ordered that the delay of 19 days in filing the C.M.A. will stand condoned. Consequently, it is also ordered that the impugned Exhibit-P5 judgment dated 29.11.2017 dismissing C.M.A.No.30 of 2016 solely on the ground of non-condonation of delay will also stand set aside and it is ordered that the said C.M.A. will stand restored to the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The lower appellate court will hear all the parties concerned and then proceed to dispose of C.M.A.No.30 of 2016 on merits and in accordance with law, without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of

¶40

: :3::

¶41

O.P.(C) Nos.176 &333/18

¶42

production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce certified copy of this judgment before the Sub Court, Cherthala, for necessary information.

¶43

With these observations and directions, these Original Petitions (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶44

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

csl

Thilakaraj v. Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thilakaraj v. Rani

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

George Jacob Pulickal Vs Surendhu Govindan

Beegum Farisa Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Sidique Vs the Land Tribunal Tirur

Liji K. Vs Sri. a.K.Aravindakshan

Ajith George Thomas Vs Muraleedharan

Achamma Vs Saidu Muhammed