Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
PREMA – Appellant
Versus
G.THAMPI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to ex parte decrees must be substantiated promptly. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. courts maintain scrutiny on applications to set aside decrees to ensure justice. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. a liberal approach in condoning delays requires reasonable timelines and substantiation. (Para 6) |
| 4. final decisions uphold the dismissals when unfounded claims of fraud delay justice. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 and P8 orders. Ext.P6 is the order dated 20.09.2012 in IA.No.4854 of 2010 in OS.No.2599 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.P8 is the order dated 10.07.2017 in CMA No.15 of 2013 by the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The limited facts required for disposal of the original petition are as follows;
2. The petitioner was the additional 6th defendant in OS.No.2599 of 1992 before the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage and the petitioner is a person who had purchased 5 cents of land from a subsequent transferee under a sub mortgagee. The petitioner claims to have constructed a residential house after obtaini
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
