Sainarani, v. Nainarani
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the petitioner's application to file an additional written statement, setting aside the lower court's order based on the possibility of attempted delay. Costs were imposed pending compliance.
What did the court decide?
Set aside Ext.P5 order; allowed IA.No.603/2019 subject to payment of ₹5,000 cost and filing of memo within one month.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941
OP(C).No.668 of 2019
(CHALLENGING ORDER DATED 22.02.2019 IN IA.NO.603/2019 IN OS 495/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL )
PETITIONER/3RD DEFENDANT:
SAINARANI, AGED 45 YEARS D/O.BALAN, SRILANKAPURI, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695142.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.E.S.SANDHYA
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1, 4 AND 7:
1 NAINARANI, W/O.ROY, SRILANKAPURI, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695142.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court was justified in dismissing the application to receive an additional written statement on the ground of delay.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sainarani
- respondent
Nainarani
- respondent
Omana
- respondent
Udhayalal
- respondent
Balaravananan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court