Back
VIJU ABRAHAM
Jaya Jyothi, W/o. Subash Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
R. Saraswathy Amma, D/o. Karthyayaniamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Viju Abraham, J.)
The above original petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P14 judgment dated 8.12.2021 in CMA No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Addl. District Court-III, Alappuzha.
2. Petitioner herein is the additional 4th appellant in CMA No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Addl. District Court-III, Alappuzha. The respondents 1 to 9 are the respondents in the said CMA. The original plaintiffs are direct brother and sisters of the defendants 1 & 2. During the pendency of the CMA the original 1st defendant died. OS No.310 of 2011 was filed by the original plaintiffs viz., V.R.Chandrasekhara Panicker, Smt.V.K.Saraswathy Amma and Smt.K.Indira Devi seeking partition of plaint A and B schedule properties having an extent of 52 cents and 50 cents respectively.
3. The specific case of the 1st defendant was that his father viz. Rama Panicker had executed Gift Deed No.93/1974 and Will Deed No.16/III/74 of SRO, Kalavoor and he is in possession of the plaint schedule property and properties are mutated in his name and is paying tax also and hence the plaint schedule properties are not partible and that there is every possibility of a judgment in his favour, if the suit is decided on
The court emphasized a liberal approach in allowing petitions to set aside ex parte decrees, particularly when substantial issues warrant adjudication on merits.
The court upheld that delays in legal proceedings must be adequately explained, particularly when seeking to overturn ex parte judgments.
The court upheld the necessity of protecting the rights of older defendants in partition suits while balancing the interests of aggrieved parties.
The court emphasized that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities in delay condonation, but the appellants failed to show sufficient cause for the 3277-day delay in filing their appeal.
Fraud must be challenged promptly; undue delay in seeking relief undermines claims.
The law favors diligence over indolence; mere claims of hardship without substantial evidence do not warrant the condonation of significant delays in legal proceedings.
Negligence in pursuing legal rights disqualifies parties from condoning lengthy delays in appeals, proving insufficient cause under procedural law.
Deliberate delay to scuttle a legal process should be heavily penalized, and legal representatives cannot seek to set aside a decree accepted by the original defendants.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
