Rasheed vs Nazar

Rasheed vs NAZAR

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 26, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1351934

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/1351934
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran,Honourable Mr.Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
Decided On: Jun 26, 2023
Case Number: FAO/148/2014

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rasheed

Respondent

NAZAR

Excerpt

.....having come up for admission on 26.06.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentanil k.narendran, j.the appellant is the plaintiff in o.s.no.137 of 2009 on the fileof the sub court, kochi, which was one filed against the respondent herein-defendant, for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 24.01.2006 invoking the provisions under order xliii rule 1(c) of the code of civil procedure, 1908. the appeal is filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2013 of the sub court dismissing i.a.no.749 of 2013 in o.s.no.137 of 2009, an application filed under order ix rule 9 of the code seeking to restore i.a.no.863 of 2012, which was one filed for restoration of the suit, and i.a.no.759 of 2013 in o.s.no.137 of 2009 filed under section 5 of the limitation act, seeking to condone the delay of 45 days in filing i.a.no.749 of 2013 in o.s.no.137 of 2009. service of notice was not complete on the defendant. on 17.07.2010, the suit was dismissed for default.2. those applications ended in dismissal by the orderdated 20.11.2013, which is under challenge in this appeal.3. on 21.05.2014, notice on admission was ordered to the respondent. the notice issued to the respondent returned with an endorsement “not known”.4. today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant does not want to prosecute this appeal further, and therefore the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. anil k. narendran, judge p.g. ajithkumar, judge pv

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 MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1945 FAO NO.148 OF 2014 AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.11.2013 OF THE SUB-JUDGE, KOCHI IN I.A.NO.749 OF 2013 & 759 OF 2013 IN O.S.NO.137 OF APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: RASHEED AGED 43 YEARS S/O.BEERASA, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO CC 13/173, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI-2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.A.K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: NAZAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O.V.J. HASSANKUNJU, RESIDING AT VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, 682005 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K.Narendran, J.

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.137 of 2009 on the file

of the Sub Court, Kochi, which was one filed against the respondent herein-defendant, for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 24.01.2006 invoking the provisions under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal is filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2013 of the Sub Court dismissing I.A.No.749 of 2013 in O.S.No.137 of 2009, an application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code seeking to restore I.A.No.863 of 2012, which was one filed for restoration of the suit, and I.A.No.759 of 2013 in O.S.No.137 of 2009 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 45 days in filing I.A.No.749 of 2013 in O.S.No.137 of 2009. Service of notice was not complete on the defendant. On 17.07.2010, the suit was dismissed for default.

2. Those applications ended in dismissal by the order

dated 20.11.2013, which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. On 21.05.2014, notice on admission was ordered to the respondent. The notice issued to the respondent returned with an endorsement “not known”.

4. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,

the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant does not want to prosecute this appeal further, and therefore the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE PV

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Rasheed vs NAZAR Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran,Honourable Mr.Justice...