Case Summary
This case involves Jineesh who filed a petition to set aside an exparte decree that was passed against him. The exparte decree was issued due to his absence, which he attributes to various personal issues including a family matter.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petitions RPIA 4/2025 and IA 1/2025 to set aside the exparte decree and condone the delay were dismissed with costs. The court found that the reasons provided by the petitioner were insufficient.
Key Reasoning:
The reasons provided for the delay and setting aside the decree were not deemed sufficient by the court.
The reasons provided for the delay and setting aside the decree were not deemed sufficient by the court.
Why Defendant Won:
The reasons provided for the delay and setting aside the decree were not deemed sufficient by the court.
The reasons provided for the delay and setting aside the decree were not deemed sufficient by the court.
Supporting Evidence
The reason stated in the main petition and in the delay condonation application is not at all sufficient and genuine to set aside the exparte decree and also to condone the delay of 177 days.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, RPIA 4/2025 and IA 1/2025 are dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- JINEESH
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- NIJIL
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
B Diary in EP 102/2024, Copy of affidavit in EA 359/2024 in EP 102/2024.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Petitioner
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Smruthi Hareendran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Padmanabhan Ponnamkott
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Petition to set aside the exparte decree and condone the delay in presenting the application.
Evidence:
Therefore, in the light of discussions it can be said that the reason stated in the main petition and in the delay condonation application is not at all sufficient and genuine to set aside the exparte decree and also to condone the delay of 177 days.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
B-Diary
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document related to EP 102/24 on the file of Munsiff Court, Nadapuram.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Copy of Affidavit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document submitted in EA 359/24 in EP 102/24.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between JINEESH vs NIJIL regarding setting aside an exparte decree
Case Code Year
Case between JINEESH vs NIJIL regarding setting aside an exparte decree