Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Gracy vs Agnes

Author: V.Chitambaresh

Bench: V.Chitambaresh

       

  

  

 
 
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT:

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

       MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/5TH PHALGUNA, 1935

                                OP(C).No. 558 of 2014 (O)
                                  --------------------------


       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 237/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB
                                COURT,ATTINGAL DATED


PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------

           GRACY
           D/O.SILVAPICHA ENNAKIDANGU VEEDU, ANCHUTHENGU DESOM
           KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
           PIN-695306.

           BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU
                       SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

       1. AGNES, AGED 59 YEARS
          W/O.ROLDAN, KURISUPARAMBIL, ANCHUTHENGU DESOM
          VILAKKUMADAM, SUNIL VILLA, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695306.

       2. ROLDEN, AGED 62 YEARS
           S/O.PATHROSE, VILAKKUMADAM, SUNIL VILLA
           KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
           PIN-695306.

       3. ANIL ROLDEN, AGED 36 YEARS
           S/O.ROLDEN, VILAKKUMADAM, SUNIL VILLA
           KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
           PIN-695306.


          THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C).No. 558 of 2014 (O)
--------------------------

                                         APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1 :                TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 237 OF 2005 ON THE
                            FILES OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

EXHIBIT P2 :                TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTFILED BY
                            THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT IN OS 237/2005 ON THE
                            FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

EXHIBIT P3 :                 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.30-11-2010 IN OS
                            237/2005 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

EXHIBIT P4 :                TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DT.30-11-2010 IN OS 237/2005
                            PASSED BY THE SUB COURT,ATTINGAL.

EXHIBIT P5 :                TRUE COPY OF THE IA 889/2011 IN OS 237/2005 ON THE
                            FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL.

EXHIBIT P6 :                TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DT.23-4-2011
                            EXECUTED BY R3 IN FAVOUR OF MRS.VYAKULAM AND
                            PRODUCED IN OS 237/2005 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT,
                            ATTINGAL.

EXHIBIT P7 :                TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR PERMISSION FILED
                            BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER (IA 1940 OF 2013
                            IN OS 237/2005 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL).

EXHIBIT P8 :                TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT.30-3-2012 FILED BY
                            THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF TO EXT. P5 PETITION IN IA
                            889/2011 IN OS 237 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB
                            COURT, ATTINGAL.

EXHIBIT P9 :                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.31-10-2013 IN IA 889/2011
                            IN OS 237/2005 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT,ATTINGAL.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------                           NIL


                                                            TRUE COPY

                                                            P.A TO JUDGE

SMM



                       V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
                      = = = = = = = = = = =
                      O.P.(C) No.558 of 2014
               = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =
                Dated this the 24th day of February, 2014

                         J U D G M E N T

The court below has by the order impugned allowed the application filed by the third defendant to set aside the exparte decree in a suit for money. The reason stated by the third defendant was that he was abroad and hence could not be served with summons in the suit. The contention of the third defendant was fortified since the notice despatched was returned with an endorsement that he was abroad. The court below has exercised its discretion in allowing the application on payment of costs of ` 2,500/- to the plaintiff.

2. I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of this supervisory jurisdiction.

The Original Petition fails and is dismissed.

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm 2