IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(C).No.1342 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2015 IN IA NO.630/15 IN CMA 3/15
OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, ALAPPUZHA
-----
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER:
SHILU,
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O. ALEXANDER, PUNNACKAL HOUSE, VADACKAL MURI,
ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688003.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
SMT.M.A.SULFIA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT:
1 METILDA BOBAN,
AGED 44 YEARS,
W/O.BOBAN, RAJADHANI, PAZHAVEEDU WARD, ALAPUZHA,
PIN-688009.
2 SINDHU GOPI
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O. GOPI, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, WEST OF SWAMY GIM,
PALACE WARD, ALAPUZHA, PIN-688011.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O.P.(C) No.1342 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
In a suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent in this original petition against the second respondent, the first respondent- plaintiff sought for attachment of immovable property. An order of attachment was passed by the court on 12.11.2013. Claiming title on the basis of a Sale Deed executed on that very day viz. 12.11.2013 by the second respondent, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition as IA 2283/2014, under Order 38 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Claim Petition was enquired into and was dismissed as per order dated 31.10.2014 finding the Sale to be sham.
O.P.(C) No.1342 of 2020 -: 2 :-
2. Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, the petitioner filed CMA 3/2015 accompanied by an application as IA 84/2015 to condone the delay in filing the appeal. As per order dated 05.06.2015, the application to condone the delay viz. IA 84/2015 was dismissed since no steps were taken for service of notice and also in view of the fact that there was no representation for the appellant. Consequent to the dismissal of the delay petition, the appeal CMA 3/2015 was also dismissed as time barred.
3. Seeking restoration of the appeal, the petitioner herein-appellant filed IA 630/2015 wherein the prayer was for restoration of the CMA. Since there was no application seeking restoration of the delay petition IA 84/2015, the learned O.P.(C) No.1342 of 2020 -: 3 :- District Judge dismissed IA 630/2015. The aforesaid orders of dismissal of IA 84/2015 for default, the consequential dismissal of CMA 3/2015 and the dismissal of the restoration application IA 630/2015 are under challenge in this original petition.
The orders in question were passed in the year 2015. I do not find any reason to entertain this original petition at this belated stage. The order by the trial court, dismissing the claim is reasoned and supported on materials. So also, I do not find any error of jurisdiction with the orders impugned. The original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. to Judge
OP(C).No.1342 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OS NO. 792/2013 OF LEARNED
MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 3989/13 IN O.S.NO.
792/13
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.4221/13, DATED
12/11/13 OF S.R.O, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2283/14 FILED BEFORE MUNSIFFS COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.2283/14 IN O.S.NO.792/13 DATED 31/10/14. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CMA NO.3/2015 FILED BEFORE DISTRICT JUDE COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.84/15 DATED 05/06/2015.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CMA NO.3/2015 DATED 5/6/2015.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 630/2015 IN CMA NO.3/2015.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.630/15 DATED 08/09/15.
-----