Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 41 YEARS versus K.T.VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 41 YEARS v. K.T.VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS - WP(C) No. 8596 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 15726 (16 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8596 of 2007(W)

1. ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. SUMIMOL, W/O. ABDUL GAFOOR,

Vs

1. K.T.VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.VALSALAN

For Respondent :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :16/08/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C).No. 8596 OF 2007 W

Dated this the 16th August, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging the one line order in I.A.2927/06 in O.S.44/05. The plaintiff was given a decree for specific performance and he was directed to deposit the amount before 31.3.2006. It is averred in the petition that he got the decree only in April 2006 and requested the defendant to clear the encumbrance, take measurement of the property etc. and thereafter file an application to that effect before the executing court. He was advised that amount has to be deposited and therefore he has deposited the amount with delay. The other side would contend that it is only a deliberate attempt and he has not complied with the terms of the decree and therefore time cannot be extended. It is very clear from the conduct of the plaintiff that he has taken steps to get the implementation of the decree in a rightful manner and it is true that there is some laches on his part in depositing the amount. The time lapse is not that much, which must make the court not to use its discretion in granting extension of time. Therefore the order passed by the court below is confirmed. But before final disposal of the matter the court should consider that for the delay in WPC 8596/07 2 depositing the amount whether the plaintiff has to pay interest to the other side which the other side would have been entitled in law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.