Gopinathan v. Rajamma
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, stating that disposal of an appeal before disposition of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is legally impermissible. The appeal was allowed in part and remanded for fresh disposal.
What did the court decide?
The appeals were allowed in part; the First Appellate Court's judgment was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh disposal of the appeal after disposing of the Order 41 Rule 27 application.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1942
SA.No.829 OF 2001
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21-06-2001 IN AS 222/1992 OF DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21-12-1991 IN OS 60/1991 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT:
GOPINATHAN, S/O HARIS, AGED ABOUT 29, THARISHU VEEDU, DHANUVACHAPURAM, DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.V.RAJAN SMT.M.MANJU SRI.R.SUDHISH
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal can be disposed of without disposal of an interlocutory application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Whether non-disposal of an application for settlement of issues before appeal disposal is fatal to the appellate order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
GOPINATHAN, S/O HARIS
- respondent
RAJAMMA, D/O MARIAMMA
- respondent
SUSEELA, D/O MARIAMMA
- respondent
SANTHA, D/O SARADA
- respondent
RAJAN ALIAS UNNI, S/O JOSEPH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court