The Assistant Engineer Kerala State ... vs Pokkath Auto Fuels
2024 Latest Caselaw 29639 Ker

Kerala High Court

The Assistant Engineer Kerala State ... vs Pokkath Auto Fuels on 17 October, 2024

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

MJC No.114 of 2022 in           1
O.P(C.) No.3141 of 2012
                                                       2024:KER:77190


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946

                       MJC NO. 114 OF 2022

       AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2022 IN OP(C) NO.3141

OF 2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPLICANTS/S:

           THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
           BOARD LTD (KSEB)
           THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ATTACHED TO THE
           OFFICE STANDING COUNSEL FOR KERALA STATE
           ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD POWER HOUSE ROAD ERNAKULAM,
           PIN - 682018

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH
           SRI.NIRMAL S
RESPONDENT/S:
          POKKATH AUTO FUELS
          IRINJALAKUDA DESOM, MANAVALASSERI VILLAGE,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. JOSE, AGED 61
          YEARS, S/O. VAREED, POKKATH HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA,
          PIN - 680121

           BY ADVS. SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN(R-77)
           SRI.M.N.MANMADAN(K/198/1998)
           SRI.SOJO J.KALLIDUKIL(S-1595)
           SMT.P.SEENA(K/000546/2000)
           SRI.ASWIN JOE PICHAPPILLY(K/1753/2020)
           SMT.ASWATHY SUNIL KUMAR(K/001110/2022)
           SRI.ABAN GEO SABU(K/001166/2022)
THIS   MISCELLANEOUS   JURISDICTION    CASE   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
 MJC No.114 of 2022 in           2
O.P(C.) No.3141 of 2012
                                                2024:KER:77190


                             ORDER

Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024

The application is filed to set aside the judgment

dated 25.10.2022 and to restore the Original Petition

back to file.

2. The applicant has stated in the MJC that

this Court had dismissed the Original Petition for the

reason that no steps were taken to effect service of

notice on the respondent. The said omission occurred

due to change of the Standing Counsel of the applicant.

There is no wilfull laches or negligence on the part of

the applicant in prosecuting the Original Petition. The

applicant has serious contentions to be urged in the

Original Petition. Hence, the MJC may be allowed.

3. Heard.

4. For the reasons stated in the affidavit

filed in support of the MJC, I am satisfied that the MJC

is to be allowed.

2024:KER:77190

5. Resultantly, the MJC is allowed by setting

aside the judgment dated 25.10.2022. The Original

Petition is restored back to file.

Post as per roster.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE NAB