Mumthas vs Gopakumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 12387 Ker

Kerala High Court

Mumthas vs Gopakumar on 20 May, 2024

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE    KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

         MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY   2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946

                           CRP NO. 187 OF 2024

  IN CMA NO.73 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
      COURT - IV, PALAKKAD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELANT/1ST DEFENDANT:

              MUMTHAS,
              AGED 51 YEARS, W/O LATE MUHAMMAED IBRAHIM,RESIDING AT
              SHAIK ALI MANZIL, PUZHKKALPARAMBU,ANJUMOORTHY
              MANGALAM,   VADAKKENCHERY NO 2, ALATHUR, NOW RESIDING
              AT E7 FLAT, VIYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680009
              BY ADV BABY MATHEW

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT:

     1        GOPAKUMAR,
              AGED 60 YEARS, S/O MOHANAVARIAR,RESIDING AT MANJAPRA
              VARIATHIL,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 678685
     2        SHAFEEQ,
              AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM,
              NOCHIPARAMBU, KONNAMCHERRI, AYAKKAD,
              VADAKKENCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 678683

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP 187/2024
                                        -2-



                             O R D E R

(Dated this the 20th day of May 2024)

The order in CMA 73/2019 passed by the District

Court, Palakkad (for short, 'the Appellate Court') is under

challenge in this revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner herein was the 1 st

defendant in O.S.No.46/2006 on the file of the Sub Court,

Palakkad, and an ex-parte decree was passed against her.

The revision petitioner filed an application as I.A.

No.1753/2015 to set aside the ex-parte decree with an

application to condone the delay of 2734 days. The said

application was dismissed for default. Later, she filed

I.A.No.2138/2018 for restoration of I.A.No.1753/2015. The

said restoration application was also filed with an

application to condone the delay of 744 days.

I.A.No.2138/2018 was also dismissed as per the order dated

05/01/2019. The petitioner challenged the said order before

the Appellate Court in CMA.No.73/2019. The Appellate

Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal as per

the impugned order. It is challenging the said order, this

revision petition has been filed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and perused the records.

4. It is a case where initially there was a huge delay

of 2734 days to file the application to set aside the ex-parte

decree. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not

aware of the ex-parte decree. Even if that is believed, the

application to set aside the ex-parte decree was also

dismissed for default, and the application to restore the said

application was filed after 744 days. That application was

also happened to be dismissed for default. It is clear from

the circumstances that the petitioner has been reckless

throughout the proceedings.

There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned

order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

JS

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/01/2008 IN O S

Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/07/2016 IN I A NO

Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/07/2016 IN I A NO

Annexure 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/01/2019 IN I A NO