Damodaran.K.K vs Nirmal
2022 Latest Caselaw 2155 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
       THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022/5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                          OP(C) NO. 256 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2022 IN I.A.NO.8/2021 IN OS NO.429/2013 ON
              THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

           DAMODARAN.K.K
           AGED 73 YEARS
           S/O.KARAPPAN
           'SREERAMAKRISHNA SADANAM'
           KUTTATHARA HOUSE, PULLAZHI VILLAGE AND DESOM
           THRISSUR DISTRICT
           THRISSUR, PIN - 680012
           BY ADVS.
           M.R.VENUGOPAL
           DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
           S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN


RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

           NIRMAL
           AGED 43 YEARS
           S/O.BALACHANDRAN
           EACHARATH HOUSE, ,
           SREERAMAKRISHNA SADANAM, PUTHURKARA DESOM,
           HARISREE NAGAR, P.O.AYYANTHOLE
           THRISSUR DISTRICT
           THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

           SRI.DENNY DEVASSY-SR.GP



     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 256 OF 2022
                                  2



                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022

In this case, the defendant in O.S.No.429/2013, who is

aggrieved by order in I.A.No.8/2021 dated 18.01.2022 has filed

this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Service complete. But the respondent did not appear.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The short subject in this case is the petition filed by

the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree was allowed by the

learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur on payment of cost of

Rs.7,500/- within seven days from 18.01.2022. The petitioner has

not paid the amount within time and this original petition has

been filed on 08.02.2022.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

cost imposed by the trial court is too harsh. Anyhow, the

petitioner did not remit the amount within time. I do not think

that the cost ordered is too harsh. Therefore, I am of the view

that this petition can be closed with a direction to the petitioner

to deposit the cost ordered within a period of seven days from OP(C) NO. 256 OF 2022

today. It is made clear that if the cost ordered is neither paid nor

deposited within a period of seven days, I.A.No.8/2021 will stand

dismissed. It is specifically ordered that time for payment of

cost further shall not be extended for any reason.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to

the court below concerned, within seven days, for information

and compliance.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr OP(C) NO. 256 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 256/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD 08/3/2013 IN O.S. NO. 429/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, THRISSUR Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD 29/8/2017.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD 27/2/21 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 8/2021 DTD 7/4/21 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A. NO.8/2021 DTD 1/7/21 Exhibit P6 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/01/2022 IN I.A.NO. 8/2021 IN O.S.428/2013 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR.