Kerala High Court
Shilu vs Metilda Boban on 4 January, 2021
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. 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
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.
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.
-----
