VARGHESE KALLIATH, PAREED PILLAY
Gopalan Bhavani – Appellant
Versus
Raghavan Aravindakshan – Respondent
1. One of us referred these two cases for the decision of a Division Bench. One of the questions that requires consideration for a proper decision of these two Civil Revision Petitions is the question whether the Land Tribunal, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, has got the power to restore an application dismissed for default.
2. Gopalan Nambiyar, J., as he then was, had occasion to consider this matter in Kuttappan v. Thresia (1973 KLT. 521), where His Lordship observed thus:
"S.101 confers on the Tribunal certain specifically enumerated powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of certain specified matters. But the power under 0.9, R.9, of setting aside an ex parte decree or order is not one of the specifically conferred or enumerated powers. S.101(1) (e) provides that the Land Tribunal may have the powers of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code in respect of any other matter which may be "prescribed"; but no such prescription was brought to my notice. In the face of these, the Land Tribunal, being essentially a statutory Tribunal with specifically enumerated powers, cannot have the power to set aside an ex parte
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.