Dismissed

Radhamani v. James

Kerala HC8 Jan 2019OP(C)/2632/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order imposing costs for the dismissal of an application under the Civil Procedure Code. The court found force in the petitioner's submission regarding the flood but declined to interfere as the disputed order was not directly challenged pending restoration proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' challenge to the impugned order was dismissed. The court directed the lower court to extend time to comply with the direction for deposit.

Radhamani Vs James — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 18TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 2632 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 161/2012 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS / PETITIONERS / PLAINTIFFS:

¶8

1 RADHAMANI

¶9

AGED 44 YEARS D/O LATE SIVASANKARAN NAIR, THERKUNNEL HOUSE, MANARI KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK P O, MANARI 686 678, NOW RESIDING AT MANNUMOLEL HOUSE, NELLAD P O, MUVATTUPUZHA 686669

¶10

2 AMIYA UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 12 YEARS, (MINOR) D/O.LATE UNNIKRISHNAN KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT ARIYAPPILLIL HOUSE, KEEZHILLOM, NEAR PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541 REPRESETNED BY 1ST PETITIONER AS NEXT FRIED (UNNIKRISHNAN KRISHNANKUTTY FATHER FOR 2ND PETITIONER DIE ON 28/11/2006. HIS WIFE ALSO NO MORE).

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)

¶13

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS:

¶14

1 JAMES

¶15

AGED 53 YEARS S/O STEPHEN, BUSINESS, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, OLAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685608

¶16

2 GLADY MATHEW S/O.MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS, VEMBILLIL HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VENGALOOR.P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUJK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685608.

¶17

3 LEENA THOMAS W/O.V.V.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS VETTIYAMKAL HOUSE, KADALIKKAD.P.O, VAHZAKKULAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686670.

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

OP(C).No. 2632 of 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration. They challenge Ext.P5 order imposing costs of Rs.2,000/for restoration of an application-I.A.No.699/2013, that was dismissed for default.

¶23

I do find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the background of the flood that had affected the State at the relevant time, the non-appearance of the petitioner could not be faulted with and the court below ought not have adopted such a course. Even otherwise, a commissioner was already appointed and the report was awaited. Since the order of dismissal of the application is not under challenge in this Original Petition, I refrain from making any observations regarding the same.

¶24

Anyway, as noticed, the application that was dismissed for default has been restored by exercising the discretion. To set aside or modify the impugned order, notice will have to be issued to the opposite party. I do not think it proper to issue notice to the respondent and call upon them to appear in this proceeding.

¶25

¶26

OP(C).No. 2632 of 2018

¶27

Accordingly, I decline to interfere with the order of

¶28

the court below. The court below shall extend the time to

¶29

comply with the direction for deposit.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

OP(C).No. 2632 of 2018

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION APPLICATION AS I.A.NO.699/2013 IN O.S.NO.161/12 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD.05/03/2014 IN IA.NO.229/2014 IN I.A.NO.699/2013 IN O.S.NO.161/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16/08/201`8 IN IA.NO.699/13 IN O.S. NO.161/2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶41

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT AS IA NO.1080/18 IN IA.NO.699/13 IN OS NO.161/12 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶42

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/09/20-18 IN IA.1080/18 IN OS.NO.161/12 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.

Radhamani v. James

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamani v. James

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

Roshan, Vs Rageshkumar A.M.

Reji Prasad, Vs P. Chandran

Anandakumar, Vs Cochin Devaswom Road

Vaishna Babu Vs Jith T.

Kunjayappan, Vs Mr.Unnikrishnan

Arumugham Chettiyar Vs Pankajam