REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMAN GOPI Appellant

V/S

KUNJU RAMAN UTHAMAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAJA KULKARNI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MELA RAM AND SONS VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JAISRI SAHU VS. RAJDEWAN DUBEY [REFERRED TO]
SHEODAN SINGH VS. DARYAO KUNWAR [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA ABHYANKAR VS. KRISHNAJI DATTATREYA BAPAT [REFERRED TO]
S KALAWATI VS. DURGA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL RAM SMT RAM LUBHAI VS. RAM LUBHAI:KEWAL RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DHANWANTI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
KUBHAYAMMED VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RATANSINGH VS. VIJAYSINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
CHANDI PRASAD VS. JAGDISH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA VS. PANNALAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. KONDOTTYPARAMBANMOOSA [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KRISHNA INDLEY VS. 5TH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
CHAKKUVARKEY VS. DEVASSY KATHANAR [REFERRED TO]
BHOLANATH KARMAKAR VS. MADANMOHAN KARMAKAB [REFERRED TO]
KALABAI CHOUBEY VS. RAJABAHADUR YADAV [REFERRED TO]
KAMALAMMA VS. TRIVANDRUM PERMANENT BANK [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM VS. T ANANDAN [REFERRED TO]
THAMBI VS. MATHEW [REFERRED TO]
INDO SWISS TIME LIMITED VS. UMRAO [REFERRED TO]
BOARDS AND BOARDS PVT LTD VS. HIMALAYA PAPER MACHINERY PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but a question of moment arises for consideration in the revision, which is filed against an order passed by the learned Munsiff, Punalur, holding that the decree which was challenged as barred by limitation is executable. The judgment debtor in EP No. 14/2005 in OS No. 184/1986, who suffered that adverse order is the revision petitioner, and the decree holder, the respondent.

(2.) Suit was one for recovery of possession and it was decreed on 14.2.1990. The decree was challenged by the judgment debtor with a petition to condone delay before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara as AS No. 49/1990. Petition moved for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal was dismissed, consequently the appeal also dismissed by judgment dated 18.12.2000. The Execution Petition was filed before the Munsiff Court, Punalur on 31.1.2005, that is, fourteen years after passing of the decree by that court.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel Adv. S. Sreekumar appearing for the revision petitioners and Adv. Subhash Syriac, for the 1st respondent. The counsel on both sides invited my attention to the judicial pronouncements rendered on the question whether the dismissal of an appeal from a decree filed with a petition to condone delay consequent to the dismissal of the petition for delay, would extend the period of limitation for execution of the decree till the date of dismissal of such appeal. Since there is no controversy on any facts involved in the case, the question posed for consideration solely rests on a pure question of law as to the effect of a dismissal of an appeal preferred with a petition for condonation of delay on dismissal of such delay petition, whether it would amount to confirmation of the decree appealed against.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMAN GOPI Vs. KUNJU RAMAN UTHAMAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address