Anil Raj v. Rimmy
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside non-speaking orders of the Family Court that allowed condonation of delay and impleading legal heirs of a deceased party, finding no substantial prejudice to the petitioner.
What did the court decide?
The original petition challenging the Family Court orders was dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 15TH BHADRA, 1940 OP (FC).No. 419 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18-03-2016 IN IA Nos.1658/2015 & 1692/2015 IN OP 478/2012 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONER:
ANIL RAJ
AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.ANANDAN, RESIDING AT SOUBHAGYA,154,NEW AISWARYA NAGAR,VADAKKEVILA.P.O,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.NIKHIL
RESPONDENTS:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the Family Court orders allowing condonation of delay and impleading legal heirs of a deceased party.
Whether the failure of the Family Court to pass speaking orders vitiates the orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
ANIL RAJ
- respondent
RIMMY
- respondent
SINDHU
- respondent
RAJEEV
- respondent
SARALA
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court