Dismissed

Sundaran v. Haridasan

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019OP(C)/1748/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a special civil revisional petition challenging an order setting aside an ex parte decree in an underlying suit. The High Court held that the lower court exercised its discretion properly based on medical evidence and dismissed the revision. The lower court was directed to dispose of the underlying suit within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; lower court directed to dispose of the underlying suit O.S. 283/1999 within four months; respondent required to be prepared to adduce evidence.

Sundaran Vs Haridasan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No.1748 OF 2015(O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 283/1999 DATED 31-03-2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SUNDARAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O. ARUNACHALAM MUDALI, PANTHAPULAKKILTHERUVIL, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679513.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 HARIDASAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. ARUNACHALAM MUDALI PANTHAPURAKKIL THERUVIL KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK 679 513

¶12

2 KUMARAN AGED 43 YEARS S/O. ARUNACHALAM MUDALI. PANTHAPURAKKIL THERUVIL KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK 679 513

¶13

3 SARASWATHI AGED 55 YEARS D/O. ARUNACHALAM MUDALI. PANTHAPURAKKIL THERUVIL KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK 679 513

¶14

*4 MAHESWARI AGED 41 YEARS D/O. ARUNACHALAM MUDALI, PANTHAPULAKKILTHERUVIL, KULUKKILIYAD AMSOM, KOTTAPURAM DESOM AND POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679513. (DIED LRS IMPLEADED)

¶15

-2-

¶16

OP(C).No.1748 OF 2015(O)

¶17

*SUPPL R5 B.PERIYASWAMI AGED 54 YEARS H/O. LATE MAHESWARI. RESIDING AT 95/4, CHINNA GOUNDER NAGAR, MATHALAYAM ROAD, SARAVANAMPATTI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641035.

¶18

**SUPPL R6 ROSHINI AGED 23 YEARS D/O. LATE MAHESWARI RESIDING AT 95/4, CHINNA GOUNDER NAGAR, MATHALAYAM ROAD, SARAVANAMPATTI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641035. SUPPL R7 MOHANASUNDARAN AGED 20 YEARS S/O.LATE MAHESWARI. RESIDING AT 95/4, CHINNA GOUNDER NAGAR, MATHALAYAM ROAD, SARAVANAMPATTI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641035.

¶19

*SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 27.01.2019 IN I.A.81/2016.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP

¶21

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

-3-

¶23

OP(C).No.1748 OF 2015(O)

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.283/1999 on the files of the court below. The suit was decreed

¶26

ex parte on 13.03.2013. The fourth defendant, who is the first respondent herein filed I.A.3010/13 to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.3009/13 to condone the delay of 201 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The court below as per Ext.P7 order allowed the said applications, against which this original petition has been filed.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

It appears that the first respondent was suffering from renal problem and consequently, one of his Kidneys had to be removed. He was

¶29

-4-

¶30

OP(C).No.1748 OF 2015(O)

¶31

undergoing treatment for Kidney cancer. Eventually, an operation was conducted to remove his Kidney as is evident from Ext.A1 document. The court below after considering the relevant inputs, found that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The court below also found that there was sufficient reason to set aside the ex parte decree. When the court below had exercised its discretion and taken a view in favour of the first respondent herein, that view cannot be normally interfered with, unless there are materials to show that the said view was arbitrary or perverse. Having gone through Ext.P7, I am satisfied that the court below had rightly exercised the discretion and condoned the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The court below was also perfectly justified in

¶32

-5-

¶33

OP(C).No.1748 OF 2015(O)

¶34

setting aside the ex parte decree. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 order passed by the court below.

¶35

In the result, this original petition stands dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 1999, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

I make it clear that the first respondent shall be prepared to adduce evidence, if any, as and when directed by the court below without playing any delaying tactics.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

JUDGE

Nkr/23.10.19

-6-

OP(C).No.1748 OF 2015(O)

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY OF THE 283/1999 OF MUNSI DATED 13-03-2013.	JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. FF COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOCOPY OF THE 283/1999 OF MUNSI DATD 13-03-2013 A	DECREE IN O.S.NO. FF COURT, OTTAPALAM ND PLAN
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUPPORT OF IA 301 283/1999 OF SUB C	AFFIDAVIT FILED IN 0/2013 IN OS.NO. OURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUPPORT OF IA 300 283/1999 OF MUNSI	AFFIDAVIT FILED IN 9/2013 IN OS.NO. FF COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO. 3010/2013	OBJECTION FILED IN IN OS.NO. 283/1999.
EXHIBIT P6	PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO. 3009/2013 283/1999.	OBJECTION FILED IN IN O.S.NO.,
EXHIBIT P7	PHOTOCOPY OF COMM IA NOS. 3009/2013 O.S.NO. 283/1999 OTTAPALAM DATED 3	ON ORDER PASSED IN AND 3010/2013 IN OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, 1-03-2015.

¶46

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Sundaran v. Haridasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaran v. Haridasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chemmangatt Radha Vs Chemmangatt Prabhakaran

Subramaniya Ayyar Vs M.S.Venkitasubramanian

Remani.P.a Vs Alwaye Chitties and Finances Pvt.Ltd

Payyanattukodassery Mohammed Vs Kottuvala Subaida

Ajith George Mathew, Vs Principal General Manager

N.K.Kamaludheen Vs Abdul Jaleel