Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JACOB, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU versus MINIMOLE, W/O. VARGHESE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JACOB, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU v. MINIMOLE, W/O. VARGHESE - WP(C) No. 4550 of 2005(N) [2007] RD-KL 11553 (29 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4550 of 2005(N)

1. JACOB, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MINIMOLE, W/O. VARGHESE,
... Respondent

2. PHILIPOSE VARGHESE, VAZHAVILA MELETHIL

For Petitioner :SRI.B.JAYASURYA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :29/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 4550 of 2005

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

The writ petition is remaining defective for non completion of service of notice on the first respondent. But it is seen that the 2nd respondent was also a co-petitioner in the I.As along with the first respondent. Since the 2nd respondent is served with notice, he can represents the interest of the first respondent also. Hence the writ petition is not defective.

2. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He impugns Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munisiff on an application to set aside ex-parte decree filed by the defendants. The petitioner also impugns Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application for condonation of delay caused in the matter.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that it was without considering the objections which he had filed to applications filed by the respondents that the learned Munsiff allowed the I.As. By WPC No4550/2005 2 Exts.P4 and P5. Ext.P4 is an order passed on the application for condonation of delay. The delay, I informed, was about 9 months. In Ext.P5, the learned Munsiff says that since the service was served by affixture, the same is vitiated and there is ground to set aside the ex-parte decree. I am of the view that the learned Munsiff ought to have considered the objections raised by the petitioner to the application and pass a reasoned orders on both the applications. Accordingly, I set aside Exts.P4 and P5 and direct the learned Munsiff to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.1023/2004 and 1024/2004 at any rate within two months of receiving a copy of this judgment. The learned Munsiff is not expected to condone the delay as a matter of course and will remember that service by affixture is also a mode of service envisaged by Order 5 Rule 20 of the CPC. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

dpk WPC No4550/2005 3


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.