← Library
High Court of KeralaOP(C)/2882/2014disposed of

Velayudhan v. The Pharmaceutical Society Of Kerala

2015-01-07Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936 IA.4414/2010 IN IA.2626/2010 IN OS 622/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE ---------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 11: ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 73 YEARS S/O.KUTTIVELU, THAZHATHEL, OLAVANNA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

2. GANGADHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.KUTTIVELU, THAZHATHEL, OLAVANNA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

3. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.KUTTIVELU, THAZHATHEL, OLAVANNA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

4. PUSHPA, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O VELUKUTTY, THEKKEPURAKKAL, FEROKE AMSOM KARIKALLI DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

5. SURESH BABU, AGED 42 YEARS S/O VELUKUTTY, THEKKUPURAKKAL, FEROKE AMSOM KARIKALLI DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

6. PRAKASINI, AGED 37 YEARS D/O.VELUKUTTY, THEKKUPURAKKAL, FEROKE AMSOM KARIKALLI DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

7. PUSHPARAJAN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O VELUKUTTY, THEKKUPURAKKAL, FEROKE AMSOM KARIKALLI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

8. SUSEELA, AGED 56 YEARS D/O.KUNHUNNI, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL, MANNUR AMSOM DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK.

9. VIMALA, AGED 53 YEARS D/O.KUNHUNNI, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL, MANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ ....2/-

..2..

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

---------------------------------------------- THE PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF KERALA, REG.OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY K.C.AJITH KUMAR, 46 YEARS S/O.K.P.DAMU, PIN-695012.

BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.622 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.2626 OF 2010 IN O.S.622 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2010 IN I.A.2626 OF 2010 IN O.S.622 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT IN I.A.NO 4414 OF 2010 PRAYING FOR RESTORING I.A.2626 OF 2010 IN O.S.622 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 IN O.S.622 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF SECOND ADDITIONAL SUBN COURT,KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

------------------------------------------------- Original Petition (Civil) No.2882 OF 2014 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

This original petition is directed against Ext.P5 order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode in I.A.No.4414/2010 in O.S.No.622/2008.

2. The petitioners were defendants in the suit. They were set at ex parte. They filed I.A.No.2626/2010 to set aside the ex parte order. That application was dismissed for default. They then filed I.A.No.4414/2010 to restore I.A.No.2626/2010. That petition also happened to be dismissed by the court below. They assail the order in I.A.No.4414/2010 before this Court.

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court is given to understand that the suit itself has been decreed ex parte.

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree.

O.P.(C) No.2882/2014

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that it is not discernible from the petition as to when the petition to set aside the ex parte decree has been filed.

6. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petition said to have been filed for setting aside the ex parte decree may be directed to be considered by the court below untrammelled by the observations in Exts.P3 and P5 whereby two applications are earlier dismissed. Of course, it is unnecessary to say so. But, in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioners, it is directed that if the petitioners had filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree, that petition will be disposed of in accordance with law untrammelled by the observations contained in Exts.P3 and P5 orders.

This original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp