Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K.SASI, S/O.KILIYAN versus MURUKAN ACHARI, S/O.SANKARAN ACHARI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K.SASI, S/O.KILIYAN v. MURUKAN ACHARI, S/O.SANKARAN ACHARI - CRP No. 1012 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 3366 (13 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1012 of 2006()

1. P.K.SASI, S/O.KILIYAN,
... Petitioner

2. VILASINI, W/O.P.K.SASI,

Vs

1. MURUKAN ACHARI, S/O.SANKARAN ACHARI,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :13/12/2006

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

C.R.P.NO.1012 OF 2006

Dated this the 13 th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

Petitioners are defendants and respondents plaintiff in O.S.349/04, on the file of Munsiff Court, Todupuzha. When the suit was included in the special list and posted for evidence, respondents filed I.A.1975/05, an application to remove the suit from the list with a medical certificate. Learned Munsiff, dismissed the application. The suit was also dismissed. Respondent there after filed I.A.2092/05, an application to restore the suit. The reason shown by respondent was illness and to support that case the very same medical certificate was produced. Petitioners objected to the petition contending that there is no sufficient cause for absence, when the suit was dismissed for default. As per order dated 15.9.06 learned Munsiff allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.500/-. Defendants are challenging that order in this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents were heard.

3. Arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that learned Munsiff did not accept the medical certificate when it was produced along with I.A.1975/05 and therefore the same medical C.R.P.NO.1012 OF 2006 2 certificate should not have accepted, to accept the case of petitioner in I.A.2092/05 and therefore the order is to be set aside.

4. On going through the impugned order and hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner, I do not find any illegality of irregularity in the order passed by learned Munsiff. When adjournment of the suit was sought for by producing a medical certificate, after the suit was included in the special list, learned Munsiff did not grant the adjournment. That does not mean that medical certificate has been disbelieved. The application to restore the suit was filed within the period of limitation after dismissal of the suit. Restoration petition was filed showing sufficient cause for his absence when the suit was dismissed for default. Learned Munsiff was satisfied on the sufficiency of the cause shown and still directed respondent to pay cost also. In such circumstances I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Munsiff. Revision petition dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

bkn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.