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

2011 Supreme(Ker) 997

K.T.SANKARAN
C. Varghese Mathai – Appellant
Versus
Varghese C. Philippukutty – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:G. Unnikrihhnan and S. Sreedevi, Advocate

JUDGMENT

K.T. Sankaran, J.

The questions of law which arise for consideration in this Original Petition are: (1) Whether for restoration of a suit which was dismissed erroneously on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties before the Lok Adalath, Article 122 of the Limitation Act or Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply; and (2) When Rule 9 Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code makes a specific provision for restoration of a suit, whether Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be resorted to for that purpose.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.42 of 2005, Sub Court, Thiruvalla, which was filed by the first respondent for partition. An appeal between the parties as A.S.No.36 of 2004 was also pending before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. The aforesaid matters were referred to the Lok Adalath. In the Lok Adalath held on 29.3.2008 at Sub Court, Thiruvalla, the following arrangement was arrived at:

"Parties are present, agreed to settle the matters including matters and cases pending before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla after measuring the properties on or before the next Lok Adalath. The connected cases are A.S.No.35/2004, A.S.36/2004."

On the basi



















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