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

2010 Supreme(Ker) 901

THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Balan – Appellant
Versus
Devaki – Respondent


ORDER

Thomas P Joseph, J.

1. Maintainability of this writ petition is challenged by learned counsel for respondents on the ground that order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree is subject to a revision under Section 11 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") and hence writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would not lie. Learned counsel for petitioner maintain that writ petition is maintainable as the order under challenge if passed in favour of petitioner would not have terminated the proceedings.

2. Petitioner wanted the ex parte decree against him to be set aside and filed I.A.No.1594 of 2007 in O.S.No.75 of 2002 with an application to condone the delay. Learned Munsiff dismissed application to condone the delay and consequently the application to set aside the ex parte decree. Petitioner preferred CM.Appeal No.23 and 24 of 2008 before learned Sub judge, Tirur. The said appeals were dismissed in confirmation of the order of learned Munsiff. Question is whether order of the learned Munsiff which has been confirmed by the learned Sub judge is amenable to a revision under Section 115 of the Code or is subject to a writ petition under Article 227 of





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