Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.V.GOPALAN NAMBIAR versus MANIKKOTH VIJAYAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.V.GOPALAN NAMBIAR v. MANIKKOTH VIJAYAN - WP(C) No. 3182 of 2007(D) [2007] RD-KL 3027 (9 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3182 of 2007(D)

1. M.V.GOPALAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MANIKKOTH VIJAYAN,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :09/02/2007

O R D E R

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.3182 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 9th day of February 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.164 of 2004 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thalasseri. Summons to the defendant issued through process server was refused by the defendant. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree was passed on 24-7-2004. Immediately after the decree was passed, the respondent moved petition to have the ex-parte decree set aside. According to him, he refused the notice being not aware that the person who was attempting to serve notice on him was an officer of court. However considering the entire circumstances of the case, the trial court allowed the petition to have the ex-parte decree set aside on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. The challenge is against the said order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. It was considering the entire circumstances of the case that the respondent was given an opportunity by the court below to contest the suit and that was on condition of his paying cost of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner/plaintiff. It is seen that immediately after the decree was passed the respondent moved the petition W.P.(C)NO.3182 OF 2007 2 for setting aside the ex parte decree. There is nothing wrong in the court below having permitted the respondent to contest the suit imposing terms especially when it has been held by the Apex Court in several decisions that the party should not be permitted to walk off with an ex-parte decree depriving an opportunity for the other side to have a contest. This writ petition in the circumstances is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE

jes


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.