Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.K.THANKAMMAL, AGED YEARS versus AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.LATE GOPIKKUTTAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.K.THANKAMMAL, AGED YEARS v. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.LATE GOPIKKUTTAN - WP(C) No. 4992 of 2007(T) [2007] RD-KL 3232 (14 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4992 of 2007(T)

1. C.K.THANKAMMAL, AGED YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. T.V.SREELEKHA, AGED YEARS,

3. T.V.SREELAL, AGED YEARS,

Vs

1. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.LATE GOPIKKUTTAN,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.SHAMMI VIJAYAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :14/02/2007

O R D E R

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.4992 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 14th day of February 2007



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are additional defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.9/2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara impugning Ext.P4 order on Ext.P1 application. The said suit was one for specific performance of an agreement executed by the first defendant who is the husband of additional second defendant and the father of additional defendants 3 and 4. Consequent on death of the sole defendant petitioners were impleaded as additional defendants 2 to 4 as his legal representatives. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 26.9.2005. Petitioners filed appeal accompanied by Ext.P1 application for condonation of delay of 228 days in filing the appeal. The said application was dismissed by the appellate court vide Ext.P4 order dated 13.12.2006.

2. It is contented before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 order is passed without properly considering Ext.P1 application. All the same, it is not disputed before me that consequent on dismissal of Ext.P1 application for W.P.(C)NO.4992 OF 2007 2 condonation of delay vide Ext.P4 order, the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed as barred by limitation. It is for the petitioner in the circumstances to prefer second appeal and to canvas the correctness of the Ext.P4 order in the said second appeal so filed. This writ petition is not maintainable and it 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.