Remanded

Madhavi v. Subramanian

Kerala HC1 Nov 2023OP(C)/2151/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the lower courts to reconsider an application to set aside an ex parte decree where a medical certificate was produced in the name of the wrong petitioner. The court set aside previous orders and directed the Munsiff to expedite the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 and P7 orders set aside; Ext.P3 application directed to be reconsidered by the Munsiff; suit to be disposed of within six months.

Madhavi Vs Subramanian — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 2151 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OS 478/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD CMA 10/2021 OF SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1MADHAVI
AGED 85 YEARS
W/O. THANDENKKATTIL KRISHNAN, IRINGAPPURAM AMSOM,
PUTHAMBALLI DESOM, PUTHAMBALLI P.O., MAMMIYOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680103
2PURUSHOTHAMAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. THANDENKKATTIL KRISHNAN, IRINGAPPURAM AMSOM,
PUTHAMBALLI DESOM, PUTHAMBALLI P.O., MAMMIYOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680103
BY ADV P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1SUBRAMANIAN
AGED 82 YEARS
S/O. MATHRAMKOTTU SANKARAN, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM,
MUTHUVATTOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680506
2SATHI
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. THANDENKATTIL KRISHNAN (WRONGLY SHOWN AS
D/O.THANDEKKATTIL KRISHNAN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF
THE COURTS BELOW), IRINGAPPURAM AMSOM, PUTHAMBALLI
DESOM, PUTHAMBALLI P.O., MAMMIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680103
3BHAGAVANDAS
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. THANDENKKATTIL KRISHNAN, IRINGAPPURAM AMSOM,
PUTHAMBALLI DESOM, PUTHAMBALLY P.O., MAMMIYOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680103
BY ADVS.
T.K.ASOKAN (Therlli)
RASMI NAIR T.(K/1715/2000)
K.R.DALLY(K/56/2012)

¶11

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

OP(C) NO. 2151 OF 2023 2

¶13

JUDGMENT Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2023

¶14

The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S No. 478/2009 of the Munsiff’s Court, Chavakkad. The suit was decreed exparte on 13.07.2017. The petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte decree on 17.07.2017. One of the grounds urged was that, the 2^nd petitioner who was conducting the case on behalf of the 1^st petitioner, was laid up due to back pain. However, the medical certificate produced was the one indicating the ailments of the 1^st petitioner, who is the mother of the 2^nd petitioner. For that reason, the Ext.P3 application was dismissed vide Ext.P5 order. Although the petitioners carried a challenge to Ext.P5 order, the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court in CMA No.10 of 2021 vide Ext.P7 order.

¶15

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that, the matter requires reconsideration in the hands of the learned Munsiff, Chavakkad. It is obvious that production of medical certificate of the 1^st petitioner/mother is a mistake, since what has been pleaded as a ground to set aside the exparte order is the

¶16

OP(C) NO. 2151 OF 2023 3

¶17

ailment of the 2^nd petitioner. In such circumstances, reconsideration of the issue based on the medical certificate, if any, to be produced by the 2^nd petitioner is required for the ends of justice. Accordingly, Ext.P5 and P7 orders are set aside. Ext.P3 application is directed to be considered again by the learned Munsiff, in accordance with law and also in view of the observations contained in this judgment.

¶18

Since the suit is of the year 2009, the learned Munsiff will consider these applications and shall also expedite the trial to the extent possible and at any rate, the suit shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGE

Asw

OP(C) NO. 2151 OF 2023 4

¶24

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2151/2023

¶25

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶26

`EXHIBITS-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 478/2009 ON` `THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD`
`EXHIBITS-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED` `05.05.2011 BY THE DEFENDANT 1 AND 2 IN O.S.` `478/09 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,` `CHAVAKKAD`
`EXHIBITS-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN` `I.A.5971/2017 IN O.S.478/2009 ON THE FILES` `OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD`
`EXHIBITS-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED` `28.10.2017 BY THE PLAINTIFF IN` `I.A.5971/2017 IN O.S.478/2009 ON THE FILES` `OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD`
`EXHIBITS-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2020 IN` `I.A.5971/2017 IN O.S.478/2009 ON THE FILES` `OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD`
`EXHIBITS-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CMA.NO` `10/2021 BEFORE THE SUB COURT CHAVAKKAD`
`EXHIBITS-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.08.2023` `IN C.M.A.NO.10/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE` `COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE, CHAVAKKAD`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBITS R1(a)`	`The Land Revenue Tax Receipt issued by The` `Iringapram village dated 18/04/2023`
`EXHIBITS R1(b)`	`True Copy of the Judgement in O.P. (C) No` `3019 of 2016 of The Honourable High Court` `of Kerala dated 29-11-2016`

Madhavi v. Subramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhavi v. Subramanian

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

Leelamma Vs Geetha Subashchandran

Chembolil Dinesan Vs M.T.Ravindran Nair

Manikandan.P Vs Kulandai Velu.K.S

R. Rajesh Kumar Vs Shukapuram Kuries Private Limited

Dr. Manoj M.S Vs Suria

C.L.Kochappan Vs Secretary