Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4239 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1376 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMA 21/2018 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT /
COMMERCIAL COURT, THALASSERY
OS 4/2015 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDNAT:
MAMBARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
MAMBARAM P.MADHAVAN, S/O.KORAN,
MILAN PATHIRIYADAMSON, KELALURE DESOM,
P.O., MAMBARAM-670741.
BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA
SHRUTHI SARA JACOB
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT:
1 K.SANTHA
W/O.MURALI, A.K.NIVAS, PATHIRAYADAMSON,
KELALURE DESOM, P.O., MAMBARAM-670741.
2 THE SECRETARY
VENGAD, GRAMA PANCHAYATH P.O.,
PATHIRIYAD-670643.
BY ADVS.
C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
CIBI THOMAS
ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 1376 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2022
This Original Petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is the
first defendant in O.S.No.4/2015 on the files of the Munsiff
Court, Kuthuparamba. The petitioner assails judgment in
CMA No.21/2018 dated 29.06.2019, whereby the learned
Munsiff confirmed the order in I.A.No.218/2018 dated
15.02.2018.
2. On facts, the learned Munsiff allowed the
application filed by the plaintiff to restore the suit back to
file on payment of cost and thereby Suit dismissed for
default got restored to file. On appeal also, the restoration
order was confirmed while disallowing the cost imposed by
the trial court.
3. Heard both sides in detail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would OP(C) NO. 1376 OF 2021
argue that the plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein
willfully absent from contesting the case with ulterior
motives and therefore, the courts below went wrong in
allowing the application. She canvassed interference in
the concurrent finding entered into by the trial court as
well as the appellate court.
5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiff
urged that just one year before the date of listing of the
case, the son of the plaintiff, who was studying for MBBS,
died accidentally and the plaintiff was not in a position to
conduct the case because of the said shock. This aspect
could be seen from the records produced.
6. It is relevant to note that the application to
restore the Suit, which was dismissed for default, was filed
in time. The same was allowed by the learned Munsiff. The
said order was confirmed by the appellate court also.
Thus, concurrent finding is under challenge before this
Court.
OP(C) NO. 1376 OF 2021
Going by the orders impugned at par with the facts of
the case as discussed, I am of the view that the orders
impugned do not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity
and absolute illegality. As such the orders impugned do
not require any interference.
In the result, this Original Petition stands dismissed.
Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the
court below concerned, within two weeks, for information
and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
nkr OP(C) NO. 1376 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1376/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KUTHUPARAMBA IN I.A.NO.218/2018 IN O.S.NO.4/2015 DATED 15.2.2018. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY IN C.M.A.NO.21/2018 DATED 29.06.2018.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!