High CourtsSingle Bench

Soosamma Varghese vs Pathrose ( Died)

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 June 2022 · Citation: (2022) 06 KL CK 0173

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.S Dias, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (C) No. 1038 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 372 words

C.S Dias, J

1.

The original petition is filed to direct the Court of the Munsiff, Changanacherry, to consider and dispose of IA No.1/2021 (Ext P4) in OS No.138/2017, within a time frame.

2.

The petitioner is the first defendant in the above suit, filed by the first respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings, the first respondent died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional plaintiffs, who are the respondents 2 to 7. The eighth respondent is the second defendant in the suit. Even though the petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed her written statement, her Counsel did not inform her regarding the listing of the case for trial. Resultantly, she was set ex parte and Ext P3 ex parte decree was passed. The petitioner has filed Ext P4 application to set aside the ex parte decree. Even though the petitioner moved to the District Collector for removal of protruded portions of laterite stones, which is lying dangerously in the property, the District Collector had declined to take any action on Ext P5 representation due to the ex parte decree on record. Hence, there may be a direction to the Court below to consider and dispose of Ext P4 within a time frame.

3.

Heard; Sri.R.Reji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In view of the limited relief that I propose to pass, that is to direct the Court below to consider and dispose of Ext P4 within a time frame, I dispense with notice to the respondents.

4.

It is on record that the Court below has passed Ext P3 decree and the petitioner has filed Ext P4 application as early as on 11.10.202, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. However, the same has not been considered by the Court below.

5.

In the above circumstances, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I direct the Court of the Munsiff, Changanacherry, to consider and dispose of Ext P4 application, in accordance with law, after affording both sides an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from today.

The original petition is ordered accordingly.