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

2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3609

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.CHITAMBARESH, J
O K KANAKARAJ – Appellant
Versus
C K PREMAVALLY    Advocate - C DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL, SRI GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE,C DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL – Respondent


Judgment

A supplementary preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition was challenged in appeal with a delay of 12 days. The court below has by the orders impugned refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The court below was perfectly justified in stating that only an appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of the was obviously not maintainable.

2. The petitioner has a grievance against the supplementary preliminary decree which could be canvassed in an appeal therefrom. A fresh appeal to be filed against the supplementary preliminary decree for partition would entail in further delay. I therefore set aside Exts.P7 and P8 orders impugned in this Original Petition. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is sent back to the lower appellate court to enable the appellants therein to file OP(C) 2783/12 2 an application for conversion as an appeal suit.

3. The court below shall allow any application for conversion filed in C.M.A.No.45 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thalassery. The court below shall the

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