Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V. PRASANTHA, W/O. ARUMUGHAN versus V. PREMALATHA, W/O. SURESH BABU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V. PRASANTHA, W/O. ARUMUGHAN v. V. PREMALATHA, W/O. SURESH BABU - RSA No. 656 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 14957 (3 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA No. 656 of 2006()

1. V. PRASANTHA, W/O. ARUMUGHAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. V. PREMALATHA, W/O. SURESH BABU,
... Respondent

2. V. PRASADINI, W/O. SEKHARAN,

3. DR.V.RAMAPRASAD, S/O.VELAYUDHAN VAIDYAR,

4. V. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.PEETHAMBARAN,

5. V. SUBRAMANIAN @ PREMAN,

6. V. SUDHA, W/O.PARAMANANDAN,

7. V. SAJITHA, W/O. NANDAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

For Respondent :SRI.M.ASOKAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :03/08/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

........................................... R.S.A.No. 656 OF 2006 ............................................

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2007



JUDGMENT

Appellant is the third defendant in O.S.236 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Kozhikode. First respondent is the plaintiff and other respondents, other defendants. First respondent instituted the suit seeking a decree for partition. Appellant though appeared, subsequently remained absent and was set exparte. She did not file even a written statement. The case was contested by the other defendants. After recording the evidence of one witness on the side of the plaintiff and four witnesses on the side of defendants, a preliminary decree was passed on 18.12.2003. Appellant much after the preliminary decree filed an application to set aside the exparte decree which was dismissed. It is thereafter first appeal was filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 586 days in filing the first appeal. Learned District Judge on appreciation of the grounds alleged for the delay, recording that delay was not properly explained, dismissed the application. Consequently A.S.141 of 2005 was dismissed as barred by time. It is challenged in the second appeal. RSA 656/2006 2

2. Appeal was filed with an application to condone the delay. Respondents appeared on that application and delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and first respondent were heard. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for appellant was that first appellate court should have condoned the delay and allowed the appellant to have a decision on merits.

3. On hearing learned counsel appearing for appellant, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appellant, though appeared through a counsel before the trial court did not file a written statement. Even though preliminary decree was passed on 18.12.2003, even copy application was filed only on 18.5.2005 and the certified copy was seen received on 15.6.2005. Even thereafter appeal was not immediately filed but was filed after a month. First appellate court had considered all the relevant aspects in the proper perspective and having satisfied that there is no sufficient ground, dismissed the application. I find no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-


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.