Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KARTHIYAYANI KAMALAMMA versus KARTHIYAYANI PONNAMMA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KARTHIYAYANI KAMALAMMA v. KARTHIYAYANI PONNAMMA - CMA No. 157 of 2001 [2007] RD-KL 16819 (6 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CMA No. 157 of 2001()

1. KARTHIYAYANI KAMALAMMA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KARTHIYAYANI PONNAMMA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN

For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

Dated :06/09/2007

O R D E R

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J

C.M.A.No.157 of 2001

Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2007



JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the orders passed by the learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta dismissing I.A.Nos.701/1999, 713/2000 and 714/2000 in A.S.No.14/1999.

2. Appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.503/1996 on the file of the Munsiff's Court. Suit was dismissed on 19.12.1998. Appellant filed A.S.No.14/1999 before the District Court along with I.A.No.91/1999 to condone the delay in filing the appeal. That petition to condone delay came up for hearing on 10.9.1999. On that day the same was dismissed on the ground that defects not cured nor fresh steps taken. The appeal was also dismissed as barred by limitation. Appellant filed I.A.No.701/1999 for restoration of the appeal as well as the delay petition. That petition was posted to 6.12.2000. On that day the appellant and counsel were absent. So that I.A. was dismissed. Subsequently the appellant filed I.A.Nos.713/2000 and 714/2000. I.A.No.714/2000 was filed under Order XLI Rule 19 of CPC to restore the appeal dismissed for default. The prayer in I.A.No.713/2000 was to condone the delay of 270 days in filing I.A.No.714/2000. I.A.No.701/1999 was a composite petition for restoring the appeal as well as the delay petition. That application was dismissed and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The appellant had not offered any CMA No.157/2001 -: 2 :- valid explanation for not curing the defects in I.A.No.701/1999. She had also not offered any proper explanation for not filing I.A.No.714/2000 within the time allowed by law. So the finding of the lower appellate court that the appellant has not offered any explanation for the delay is only to be confirmed. But I make it clear that this judgment will not be a bar for the appellant to file Second Appeal against the decree and judgment passed in the appeal and raise all the grounds in that appeal. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR

JUDGE

cks CMA No.157/2001 -: 3 :-

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

C.M.A.No.157 of 2001

JUDGMENT

6th September, 2007.


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.