Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
VEENA – Appellant
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR.K. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's ex parte decree and need for restoration application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel's arguments for setting aside the decree. (Para 3) |
| 3. discussion on absence of respondent and rationale for reopening the case. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's authority to reconsider applications based on merits. (Para 6) |
| 5. final order to allow appeal and direct reconsideration. (Para 7) |
Devan Ramachandran , J.
The appellant admittedly suffered an ex parte decree in OP No.217/2017 on the files of the learned Family Court, Kasaragod, filed by the respondent – her estranged husband; and she, thereupon, preferred RPIA No.65/2023, seeking restoration of the same, invoking the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This application was accompanied by a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing it, but since she was not present before the learned Court, on 25.05.2024 - when the matter was considered - it was dismissed for default, consequently, leading to the restoration application being rejected.
2. The appellant challenges the order of the learned Family Court, dated 25.05.2024, as also the ex parte decree.
3. Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, learned senior counsel, i
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
