RAMACHANDRAN NAIR V K Vs. KERALA PERMANENT FUND LTD
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KERALA PERMANENT FUND LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) C.M.A. No. 54 of 2003 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 1027 of 2002 while C.R.P. No. 2446 of 2002 is filed against the order in I.A. 1026 of 2002. I.A. No. 1927 of 2002 was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree while the other is filed for condoning the delay in filing I.A. No. 1027 of 2002.
(2.) In the suit, notice was given to the defendant. Defendant appeared. He did not file any written statement even after four or five adjournments. The suit was posted for payment of balance court fee and evidence. Since no balance court fee was paid and there was no representation, the plaint was rejected. It is now seen that a restoration petition was filed and that was allowed without notice to the petitioners. It is submitted by the defendants that they came to know about the ex parte decree only when they received notice in the execution proceedings. Hence the present application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree and the petition to condone the delay.
(3.) The Court was taken the view that no notice is necessary to be given to the petitioners when the suit was restored. We are sorry to say that this is not correct. Normally, in a suit where a defendant is declared ex parte it will not be necessary to give notice on interlocutory applications. But here interlocutory applications are filed not during the pendency of the suit, but after the disposal of the suit. When the plaint was rejected, a right is vested in the defendant. This cannot be set at naught without giving notice.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.