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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
GIRISH M – Appellant
Versus
INDU MOHAN T – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.RINESH E.V., SMT.REMYA V.A.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 decree of the learned Family Court, Thrissur, in GOP 1418/2020, alleging that the agreement, based on which it was issued, was obtained through ‘coercive, unrealistic and impossible performance’ (sic).

2. We are afraid that we cannot entertain this Original Petition on the afore plea because, challenge to a decree is possible only under the provisions of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

3. Sensing the mind of this Court as afore, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this Original Petition, with liberty being reserved to his client to approach this Court again through an appropriate Statutory Appeal.

In the afore circumstances, this Original Petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn, with every liberty in law available to the parties being reserved to them.

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