Allowed

P.K.Kuriakose v. M/S. Patel Real Estate Developers (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC22 Sept 2022RP/139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the High Court of Kerala observed that previous comments on laches regarding non-payment of court fee were erroneous. Finding these comments wrong against the facts, the Court allowed the review and directed the registry to post the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed; the Registry is directed to post the order in O.P(C) No.1392 of 2019 on 26.9.2022.

P.K.Kuriakose Vs M/S. Patel Real Estate… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

RP NO. 139 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 31ST BHADRA, 1944

¶7

RP NO. 139 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1392/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶9

KERALA

¶10

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

¶11

P.K.KURIAKOSE AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KURIAKOSE, PAZHEMADOM HOUSE, VAIKKOM KARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE (PRESENTLY UDAYANAPURAM), VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 146 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶12

BY ADVS. UTHARA A.S C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) MAHESH CHANDRAN ANANDA PADMANABHAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON VIVEK NAIR P.

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶14

M/S. PATEL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS (P) LTD REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.18 CROSS LANE, KALASIPALAYAM NEW EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 002 AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.32/2383, 2ND FLOOR, DOOR NO. 6280, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025, REP. BY ITS RESIDENCE DIRECTOR MR.BALAGOPAL VALIPARAMBIL BHASKARANUNNI, S/O. LATE DR. BHASKARANUNNI GOKULAM, MEC ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA, COCHIN. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RP NO. 139 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The review petition is filed, to review the judgment in O.P(C).No.1392/ 2019 of this Court.

¶20

The review petitioner had filed the original petition challenging the common order in I.A.No.637/2018 in O.S.No.452/2012 and I.A No.995/2018 in O.S No.6/2014 of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kottayam.

¶21

The review petitioner has averred that this Court had dismissed the original petition principally for the reason that the petitioner had failed to remit the balance court fee in O.S No.452/2012 within the time period granted by the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP.No.14651/2018. In fact, the Honourable Supreme Court had subsequently enlarged the time period to pay the court fee in O.S No.452/2012 and the petitioner paid

¶22

RP NO. 139 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

the amount. Therefore, the observations made by this Court to dismiss the original petition is an error apparent on the face of record. Hence, the review petition.

¶25

Heard; Sri.K.B.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

On a reading of the impugned judgment, it is seen that this Court had made the following observations

¶27

in the impugned judgment:

¶28

“Considering the circumstances in this case, I find no merits, whatsoever, for the petitioner to get the suit restored. The intention of the petitioner is very clear. He was not able to pay the court fee despite the generous grant of time both by this Court and the Supreme Court. His suit had to be rejected for the reason that his suit has been jointly tried with O.S. No.452/2012, and he wanted adjournment of that suit also, which is nothing but a dilatory tactics deployed by him to protract the litigation. Such tactics cannot be encouraged. The learned Additional Sub Judge was justified in dismissing both the applications. I find no valid reason whatsoever to interfere with that common order. The Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs”.

¶29

RP NO. 139 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

It is admitted by both sides that the Honourable Supreme Court had enlarged the time period to remit the balance court fee in O.S No.452/2012, which was availed of by the petitioner and the suit filed was restored to file on 20.05.2019.

¶32

In the above background, I am of the firm view that the observations made by this Court in the impugned judgment regarding the laches on the part of the petitioner in non-payment of court fee and that his intention is only to delay the disposal of O.S No.452/2012 is wrong and against facts. The same is an error apparent on the face of record warranting the review of the impugned judgment. Hence, I am satisfied that the review petition is to be allowed.

¶33

RP NO. 139 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

In the result, the review petition is allowed, by reviewing the judgment dated 27.1.2020 in O.P(C) No.1392 of 2019. The Registry is directed to post O.P (C) No.1392 of 2019 on 26.9.2022.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

ma/ 22.9.2022

JUDGE

P.K.Kuriakose v. M/S. Patel Real Estate Developers (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Kuriakose v. M/S. Patel Real Estate Developers (P) Ltd.

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

Sreedevi Vs Revathy Reghunath

Nimmy Rachel Koshy, Vs Sachin Prakash

V.M. Sindhu @ Shreemathy Thankachi Vs K. Shaji

R.K.Sasidharan Vs the Principal Agricultural Officer

G.Harikumar, Vs Lalitha Sudhakaran

T.J.Jimmy Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.