Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
DILEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
RAJIKUMAR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks direction to the lower court regarding appeal delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observes the substantive delay in appeal filing. (Para 4) |
| 3. court finds no directive necessary due to delay. (Para 5) |
| 4. original petition disposed, cost to be deposited. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
This original petition is filed for issuing a direction to the Sub Court, Karunagappally, to dispose of I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2025 in AS.No.33/2025 on the files of Sub Court, Karunagappally.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit and the suit was dismissed. Subsequently, the appeal came to be filed on 31.07.2025, just ten days prior to this petition.
3. It is submitted that, I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed before the Sub Court, Karunagappally, is for condoning the delay of 525 days, and I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed for staying the execution and operation of the order under challenge in this petition.
4. It is further submitted that the suit was dismissed with costs, therefore, the respondent has filed an execution petition for realisation of the cost of Rs.4,575/-. It is not in dispute that, there are 525 days of delay in filing the 1st appeal. Therefore, the Appellate Court iss
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
