Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940
OP(C).No. 916 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN E.P. NO.57/2009 IN OS 521/2000 of
MUNSIFF'S COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY
PETITIONER:
VELAYUDHAN,
S/O. KARUVANKUNJUNNI, ATHANIDESOM,
MINALOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
1
KRISHNAKKUTTY,
S/O. KARUVAKKUNJUNNI, MINALOOR VILLAGE, ATHANIDESOM,
THALAPPALLY TALUK 680 581
2
KARTHIAYANI,
W/O. KARUVANKUNJUNNI, W/O. KARUVANSANKU, MUNDATHIKODE
VILLAGE, ARYAMBADAMDESOM,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK 680 601
3
LEELA
W/O. LATE KARUVANKUTTAPPAN,
D/O. KARUVANKUNJUNNI, ATHANIDESOM,
MINALOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK 680 581
4
SATHYAN,
S/O. LEELA, KARUVAN HOUSE, ATHANIDESOM,
MINALOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK 680 581.
5
SANTHA,
D/O. KARUVANKUNJUNNI, W/O. SURESH,
VELLARAKKAD VILLAGE AND DESOM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 504.
OP(C).No. 916 of 2019
2
6
JAYAN,
S/O. LEELA, KARUVAN HOUSE, MINALOOR VILLAGE,
ATHANIDESOM, THALAPPALLY TALUK 680 581
7
PRAKASAN,
S/O. LEELA, KARUVAN HOUSE, MINALOOR VILLAGE,
ATHANIDESOM, THALAPPALLY TALUK 680 581
8
JAYANTHI,
D/O. LEELA AND W/O. SURESH,
THONURKARA VILLAGE AND DESOM,
THALAPPALLY TALUK 680 586
9
SOBHANA,
D/O. LEELA, KARUVAN HOUSE, MINALOOR VILLAGE,
ATHANIDESOM, THALAPPALLY TALUK 680 581.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 916 of 2019
3
Petitioner is the 2nd respondent defendant in
the final decree application. He was ex-parte in
the preliminary decree and also in the final
decree. Petitioner filed an appeal challenging
the final decree proceedings by filing
I.A.Nos.406/2019 and 407/2019 with a request to
set aside the ex-parte order and to condone the
delay of 4100 days. The claim of the petitioner
is that a place of worship in one of the
properties should be set up for common benefit.
2.
Evidently,
petitioner
did
not
participate in either the preliminary decree
proceedings or the final decree proceedings. At
the fag end of the final decree proceedings, when
the property was proposed to be delivered, the
petitioner has come up challenging the final
decree proceedings, after huge delay. It is for
the lower appellate court to consider the
legality and correctness of that application.
I am not inclined to stay the delivery
proceedings in the final decree proceedings till
the above I.As. are heard.
O.P.(C) fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
Pn 19/03
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE IN IA
NO. 1713 OF 2003 IN OS NO. 521 OF 2000
DATED 29-03-2007
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
FILED AS AS NO. 44 OF 2019 BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED
12-02-2019
EXHIBIT P3
TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION
PETITION FILED AS IA NO. 441 OF 2019
IN AS NO. 44 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED
12-02-2019
EXHIBIT P4
TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA 407 OF
2019 IN IA 1713 OF 2003 IN OS NO. 521
OF 2000 DATED 15-02-2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERY
TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTEE DECREE.
EXHIBIT P5
TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA 406 OF
2019 IN IA 1713 OF 2003 IN OS NO. 521
OF 2000 DATED 15-02-2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERY
TO CONDONE THE DELAY TO FILED PETITION
TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE DECREE.
