Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PALAT C. AHAMMED, AGED 62 YRS versus V.P.SAFIA, AGED 36 YRS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PALAT C. AHAMMED, AGED 62 YRS v. V.P.SAFIA, AGED 36 YRS - FAO No. 111 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 1450 (18 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO No. 111 of 2006()

1. PALAT C. AHAMMED, AGED 62 YRS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. V.P.SAFIA, AGED 36 YRS,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

For Respondent :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :18/01/2007

O R D E R

K.T.SANKARAN, J

F.A.O. No. 111 of 2006

Dated this the 18th day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

The appellant challenges the order in I.A.No.461/05 in A.S.No.12/98, Sub Court, Hosdurg, by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 19 of C.P.C. The appeal was posted for hearing on 14.2.2001. On that day, the appellant and the respondent were absent and the court below dismissed the appeal for default. Subsequently the appeal was readmitted. The appeal was posted for hearing on 27.6.2005. On that day, counsel for the appellant reported no instructions. The appellant was absent and the court below dismissed the appeal for default. I.A.No.461/2005 was filed by the appellant under Rule 19 of Order 41. The court below dismissed the application stating that no grounds are made out for readmitting the appeal.

2. It is stated that the appellant could not appear before court since he was laid up. The court below noticed that no medical certificate was produced and no evidence was adduced FAO111/2006 2 to substantiate the contentions put forward by the appellant and to explain why he did not appear before court on the date fixed for hearing of the appeal. After having heard the counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the appellant to prosecute the appeal on the merits on condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs to the respondent within a period of one month. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside and A.S.No.12 of 1998 is readmitted on condition that the appellant shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs within a period of one month. If the appellant fails to pay the costs, the order impugned shall remain in force and this FAO will be treated as dismissed. Since the appeal is of the year 1998, the court below shall dispose of the appeal on or before 31.3.2007. K.T.SANKARAN,

JUDGE

csl FAO111/2006 3

K.T.SANKARAN, J

M.F.A.No.1479 of 1998

JUDGMENT

FAO111/2006 4 11th January, 2007 FAO111/2006 5


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.