Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.RAMKUMAR, J
LALI – Appellant
Versus
SASIDHARAN AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/3562/2010
Delay - Partition Suit - Act Section List - The court evaluated the procedural frameworks surrounding appeals and delay petitions under civil procedure, emphasizing the necessity to address delays before proceeding with final decree proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a preliminary decree against her claim for a share in a partition suit, asserting her appeal had been delayed significantly due to inaction by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the appellate court must address the delay petition promptly, ensuring efficient judicial process while temporarily suspending final decree proceedings.
Issues: Whether the appellate court's delay in considering the petition to condone delay affects the ongoing final decree proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The necessity to resolve procedural delays before advancing with substantive matters in partition suits was emphasized as a principle of judicial efficiency.
Final Decision: The court directed the appellate court to hear the delay petition and stay final decree proceedings accordingly.
JUDGMENT
The 4th defendant in O.S. No. 240 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Varkala is the Writ Petitioner herein. The said suit instituted by respondents 1 to 3 was one for partition and separate possession of their half share over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs are the husband and children of one Rajalekshmi who died prior to the suit. The said Rajalekshmi along with defendants 3 and 4 are the children of defendants 1 and 2. The trial court passed a preliminary decree on 31-12-2006 holding that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to a share over the properties. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree the petitioner claims to have filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Attingal as A.S. No. 87 of 2009 with a petition to condone the delay of 646 days. The grievance of the petitioner is that the lower appellate court is yet to take up the application to condone the delay for hearing and in the meanwhile the final decree proceedings are being continued. She, therefore, prays for a disposal of the appeal and a direction to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 240 of
2009.
2. In the fitness of things, the Sub Court, Attingal should take up for consideration the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal (A.S. 37 of 2008) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in case, the delay is condoned, take up the appeal A.S. No. 87 of 2009 and pass appropriate orders in the said appeal.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Sub Court, Attingal to take up for consideration the petition to condone the delay in filing A.S. No. 87 of 2009 and dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The passing of the final decree in O.S. 240 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court Varkala shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the delay petition. It is made clear that all other proceedings in the final decree proceedings can go on except the actual passing of the final decree.
V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)
ani.
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
