The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex-parte decree in an execution petition. The court rejected the plea to condone a 1886-day delay and upheld the second respondent's locus standi as subrogated decree holder, finding no merit in the challenge.
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 A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1941
FAO.No.38 of 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 247/2011 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
GODFRED, S/O. BHARATHAN AGED 56 YEARS JOICE VILLA KUNJUKATTU KARA, EDATHALA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.TYPE 2 17/8, AYUDH VIHAR, NAD COLONY, ALUVA,
BY ADVS. SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL SRI.M.B.SOORI SRI.P.D.JAYAN MON
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA REGD OFFICE AT MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, KALAMASSERRY BRANCH, PREMIER JUNCTION NORTH KALAMASSERY.-683104
2 JOHNSON MATHEW K S/O. LATE MATHEW JOHN K, AGED 60 YEARS, KODINJOOR HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.
BY ADVS. SRI.LEEJOY MATHEW.V. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO.No.38 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
A.Hariprasad J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and second respondent.
FAO.No.38 of 2019
3
before us.
Standing Counsel for the bank and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
FAO.No.38 of 2019
4
Procedure. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the principles of law applicable, we find no merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
smm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1886 days in approaching the court to set aside an ex-parte order should be condoned.
Whether the second respondent had locus standi to oppose the set-aside application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
Whether the exparte decree should be set aside due to the appellant's concealment of liabilities.
GODFRED
UNION BANK OF INDIA
JOHNSON MATHEW K
A.HARIPRASAD
SHIRCY V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
