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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 46

A.BADHARUDEEN
C. G. Thampi S/o Gopalan – Appellant
Versus
Jyothis S/o Vijayan – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.P. Unni.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Order in I.A. No. 425/2018 in O.S. No. 71/2014 on the file of the additional Munsiff Court, Kochi is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the order impugned. As per the order impugned, the learned Munsiff considered an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application filed under section 5 of the limitation Act. Finally, petition was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid on or before 3.1.2020. The same order made it clear that if the cost not paid as directed the application would stand dismissed. The petitioner herein failed to pay the cost and accordingly application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, along with delay petition were dismissed. The said orders are appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(d). Now comes the significance of power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In cases where remedy by way of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, whether the remedy Article 227 of the Constitution of India is available?

3. While answering the query, a decision of the A

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