B.S.Sunilkumar vs a.Jyoth Kumar

B.S.Sunilkumar vs A.Jyoth Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 01, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1351263

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1351263
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran,Honourable Mr.Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
Decided On: Jun 01, 2023
Case Number: FAO/52/2013

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B.S.Sunilkumar

Respondent

A.Jyoth Kumar

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice anil k.narendran & the honourable mr.justice p.g. ajithkumar thursday, the 1st day of june 2023 / 11th jyaishta, 1945 f.a.o. no. 52 of 2013 against the order dated 17.12.2009 in i.a.nos.623 and 624 of 2009 in o.s.no.113 of 2006 of the principal sub court, attingal appellant/petitioner/defendant: b.s.sunilkumar s/o. balakrishnan nair, b.s. mandiram, karuvalliyadu, vamanapuram post, thiruvananthapuram. by adv sri.liju. m.p respondent/respondent/plaintiff: a.jyothi kumar aged 41 years s/o. ammukutty amma, jyothis pedikulam, pulimathu.p.o., pulimathu village, karette (via), chirayinkeezhhu taluk, thiruvananthapuram district - 695 304. this first appeal from orders having come up for admission on 01.06.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following: f.a.o.no.52 of 2013judgmentp.g. ajithkumar, j.this is an appeal filed under order xliii, rule 1(d) of the code of civil procedure, 1908. the appellant challenges the orders of the sub court, attingal, dismissing i.a.nos.623 and 624 of 2019 in o.s.no.113 of 2006 filed by him to condone the delay and set aside the exparte decree in the suit. there was a delay of 447 days.2. this appeal was filed along with c.m.appl.no.139 of2013 seeking to condone the delay of 1047 days. consolidated on the appeal and the c.m.application was ordered. despite giving enough time, the appellant did not take steps to complete service of notice on the respondent.3. today, when this matter is taken up forconsideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that he has no proper instruction from the appellant. in the said circumstances, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. anil k. narendran, judge p.g. ajithkumar, judge dkr

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945 F.A.O. NO. 52 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2009 IN I.A.NOS.623 AND 624 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.113 OF 2006 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: B.S.SUNILKUMAR S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, B.S. MANDIRAM, KARUVALLIYADU, VAMANAPURAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: A.JYOTHI KUMAR AGED 41 YEARS S/O. AMMUKUTTY AMMA, JYOTHIS PEDIKULAM, PULIMATHU.P.O., PULIMATHU VILLAGE, KARETTE (VIA), CHIRAYINKEEZHHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: F.A.O.No.52 of 2013

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant challenges the orders of the Sub Court, Attingal, dismissing I.A.Nos.623 and 624 of 2019 in O.S.No.113 of 2006 filed by him to condone the delay and set aside the exparte decree in the suit. There was a delay of 447 days.

2. This appeal was filed along with C.M.Appl.No.139 of

2013 seeking to condone the delay of 1047 days. Consolidated on the appeal and the C.M.Application was ordered. Despite giving enough time, the appellant did not take steps to complete service of notice on the respondent.

3. Today, when this matter is taken up for

consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that he has no proper instruction from the appellant. In the said circumstances, this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties B.S.Sunilkumar vs A.Jyoth Kumar Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran,Honourable Mr.Justice...