Saudamini v. Bindu
Case brief
What is this about?
A single judge disposed of a civil revision petition by dispensing with notice to the respondent and directed the lower court to adjudicate a dispute regarding the accuracy of valuation and court fee within two months.
What did the court decide?
Notice consigned non-essential; lower court directed to decide valuation/court fee issue within two months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941
OP(C).No. 1173 of 2019
(OS 187/2014 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA)
PETITIONER/S:
SAUDAMINI, AGED 72 YEARS W/O PRABHAKARAN, PUNNAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR, PIN-680 664
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
BINDU
W/O. SADANANDAN, KARIYEZHATH HOUSE, POYYA P.O, MALA, THRISSUR, PIN-680 733
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether notice to the respondent is dispensible when the petitioner seeks expedited consideration of a valuation dispute.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Saudamini
- respondent
Bindu
Coram
Sunil Thomas
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court