Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.MOHAN DAS PRABHU, S/O. MADHAVA PRABHU versus M/S. ERNAKULAM FINANCIERS AND

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.MOHAN DAS PRABHU, S/O. MADHAVA PRABHU v. M/S. ERNAKULAM FINANCIERS AND - WP(C) No. 31354 of 2003(G) [2007] RD-KL 11135 (25 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31354 of 2003(G)

1. M.MOHAN DAS PRABHU, S/O. MADHAVA PRABHU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M/S. ERNAKULAM FINANCIERS AND
... Respondent

2. D.PRASAD, S/O. LATE J.DASA PAI,

3. D.PRAKASH, S/O. LATE J.DAS PAI,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER

For Respondent :SRI.M.V.JOHN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :25/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.31354 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 25th June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Even though learned counsel for the petitioner would address very strenuous arguments, I am unable to say that Ext.P1 order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing an application for condonation of delay caused in the matter of filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and consequently dismissing the application to set aside ex parte decree also suffers from any infirmity warranting interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned orders are well reasoned orders and it is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge on a perusal of the records noticed that the claim of the petitioner that he had been served no summons or notice and that he came to know about the passage of the decree only on getting notice from the execution court is not true. The learned Subordinate Judge further noticed that even if it is assumed that the petitioner came to have knowledge about the passage of the decree only on getting notice from the execution court, then also there is no convincing reasons regarding the delay which has been occasioned subsequently. At any rate there is no warrant for interfering with Ext.P1 order in the supervisory W.P.C.No.31354/03 - 2 - jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. No costs.

srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE


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.