SHAJI MON v. SATHEESH KUMAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
P3 application is allowed and the trial is allowed to be
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. On a totality of the circumstances now brought to my notice, I am of the view that this petition is only to be allowed. The Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, is directed to dispose of Ext.P3 application, within in a period of one month from…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------------- SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, PAPPARI VEEDU, PUTIYOOR SALA DESOM, MANKODU VILLAGE, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT-629 152 BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.2365/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX P1 P2 COPY OF THE EX-PARTE DECREE DATED 11/12/2007 OS.NO.670/06 FILED ON 1/9/06 PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/7/2008 IN I.A.1993/08 & IA.1994/08 IN OS.670/06 PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/7/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2410/2010 DATED 18/11/2010 EXECUTED BY THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2365 of 2011. --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2012 JUDGMENT Heard both sides.
The defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the petitioner. The suit has been decreed exparte. The petitioner was given an opportunity to have the exparte decree set aside on payment of heavy costs. He did not pay the costs as ordered because according to the petitioner, it was impossible for him to raise such an amount due to heavy treatment expenses to be met by him and also coupled with the fact that he got infected with Jaundice for which again he had to find source for treatment. It is alleged that based on the exparte decree, the petitioner is now sought to be evicted from his residential house.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a petition before the trial court for enlargement of time for the deposit of the cost amount and it is pending consideration.
The request was opposed tooth and nail by the learned counsel for the respondent. According to the learned counsel, it is only a delay tactics. OP(C) No.2365/2011 -:2:-
Operative part
On a totality of the circumstances now brought to my notice, I am of the view that this petition is only to be allowed. The Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, is directed to dispose of Ext.P3 application, within in a period of one month from today in accordance with law. In the event of allowing the said application, the learned Munsiff shall also consider awarding sufficient costs to the contesting respondent, as he was driven to the risk of contesting the matter before this Court. Parties shall mark appearance before the Munsiff's Court on 04/10/2012. If Ext.P3 application is allowed and the trial is allowed to be proceeded with, the entire exercise shall be completed by the learned Munsiff within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE Sd/- //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.