Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
ANEESH AGED 40 YEARS S/O HAMEED KUTTY – Appellant
Versus
SIRAJUDEEN S/O KASIM PILLAI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application restoration for an ex parte decree. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the lapse of the counsel and delay tactics. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on dismissing the appeal. (Para 6) |
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Mavelikkara in I.A. No.1/2022 in O.S. No.192/2008. The said application was filed by the appellants seeking restoration of a petition filed for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed.
2. According to the appellants, when the case was posted for trial on 09.02.2021, their counsel could not reach the court as his vehicle broke down on the way, and consequently, the appellants were set ex parte. It is further stated that, though the above Interlocutory Application for setting aside the ex parte decree was, on 22.03.2022, posted to 01.06.2022, the advocate clerk erroneously noted the posting date as
01.09.2022. In these circumstances, when the I.A. was called on 01.06.2022, the appellants could not appear before the court, and the matter was adjourned to 01.07.2022, on which date the application was dismissed fo
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
