Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, K. Babu, JJ
M. SHIVANANDA – Appellant
Versus
M. SUSHEELA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant filed for partition; suit dismissed for default. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal standards governing default dismissals and sufficient cause. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court rules favor restoration due to principles of joint ownership. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 4. court orders to restore suit and expedite proceedings. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
“CR”
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosdurg, is the appellant in this appeal, which is one filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, against the order of the said court dated 24.02.2007 in I.A.No.163 of 2005 in O.S.No.28 of 1999. The appellant is the 3rd plaintiff. The said suit is one filed by the appellant along with two others seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. On 11.02.2005, the suit was dismissed for default. The appellant along with 2 others filed I.A.No.163 of 2005, an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code, seeking restoration of that suit. That application was one filed within the period of limitation. By the impugned order dated 24.04.2007, the court below dismissed
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
