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

1976 Supreme(Ker) 199

P.JANAKI AMMA
CHRISTEENA – Appellant
Versus
KOLAPPAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The 8th defendant in a suit pending before the Munsiff's Court Neyyattinkara is the revision petitioner.

The suit filed by the respondent stood posted for trial on 27-8-1975. On that day, the plaintiff and his counsel were not present and the suit was dismissed for default. An application for restoration of the suit to file was dismissed by the Munsiff C.M.A. 41 of 1976 was filed against the order of dismissal before the District Court, Trivandrum. The first Additional District Judge Trivandrum allowed the appeal on condition that the Plaintiff paid or deposited in court Rs. 30/-each to the counsel of respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 7 in the appeal within a period of 10 days. The order proceeded that if the direction was not complied with, the appeal would stand dismissed. This order was passed on 14 -7-76. The Plaintiff-respondent did not pay the costs within the stipulated period of 10 days. An application was filed by him on 29 71976 for extension of time stating that he was not aware of the directions to pay costs. The petition was taken up on 317 76. The court passed the following order:

"Costs of Rs. 30/-paid to Advocate for respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 by memo dated 317








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