SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Ker) 173

VARGHESE KALLIATH, PAREED PILLAY
Gopalan Bhavani – Appellant
Versus
Raghavan Aravindakshan – Respondent


Judgment :-

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




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top