Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.GEETHA, D/O.PONNAMMA versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.GEETHA, D/O.PONNAMMA v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - FAO No. 273 of 2005 [2007] RD-KL 1580 (19 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO No. 273 of 2005()

1. P.GEETHA, D/O.PONNAMMA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), COLLECTORATE,

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDL.L.A.UNIT,

4. KAZHAKUTTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

5. TECHNOPARK, REPRESENTED BY ITS

For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :19/01/2007

O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

F.A.O.NO. 273 OF 2005

Dated this the 19th day of January,2007



JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.188 of 1995, on the file of the Court of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges the order dismissing the application filed by her for re-admission of the appeal, namely, A.S.No.303 of 2002, District Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule property. The suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff, which was dismissed for default on 30.6.2004. I.A.No.1656 of 2004 was filed for re- admission of the appeal. The reason stated in the affidavit for non-appearance on the date on which the appeal was taken up for hearing is that the date of posting was omitted to be noted by the Advocate's clerk. The court below dismissed the application on the ground that neither the Advocate nor the Advocate's F.A.O. NO.273 OF 2005 clerk filed any affidavit in support of the application for re-admission of the appeal. That is the only ground stated by the court below for dismissing the application. The reason stated by the court below is clearly erroneous.

3. The application was filed within time before the court below. The dismissal of the application on the ground that it was not supported by the affidavit of the Advocate or the Advocate's clerk was not proper. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the application is liable to be allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order in I.A.No.1656 of 2004 in A.S.No.303 of 2002 is set aside and I.A.No.1656 of 2004 is allowed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/


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.