Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
ANILKUMAR G.S. – Appellant
Versus
AJITHAKUMARI @ ASHA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant suffered an ex parte decree. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding notice and evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observations lack of sufficient evidence against prior notices. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal precedent established on condonation of significant delay. (Para 9) |
| 5. final ruling on dismissal affirming the crystallization of rights. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant suffered an ex parte decree in O.P.No.2041/2014, on the files of the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, on the assertion that he came to be aware of the decree against him only when he received notice in the Execution Petition levied by the respondent and when he was taken into custody to be produced in such proceedings, he filed I.A.No.185/2023, seeking that the said decree and the judgment be set aside, accompanied by I.A.No.1/2023 to condone the delay of 2890 days in preferring the former.
2. The learned Family Court dismissed both the afore applications, holding that the allegation of the appellant, that he did not receive notice in the Original Petition, is wrong and that he had done so on 11.02.2015, subsequent to which, he was set ex pa
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
