JOLLY ISSAC Vs. SHAKKELA SHUKOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in I.A.476 of 2009 in A.S. 92 of 2006 aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2010 has come up in appeal.

(2.) APPELLANT is the fifth respondent in A.S.92 of 2006 before the Additional District Court, Kottayam. An ex-parte decree was passed in the appeal on 22.9.2008. It is claimed that on coming to know about the ex-parte decree, the appellant herein filed I.A.476 of 2009 invoking Order 41 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rehear the appeal since the fifth respondent, who was the petitioner before the court below had not been duly served with notice. The District Court found that there was no proper service of notice. But the circumstances showed that she was fully aware of the pendency of the appeal and was in know of things. But considering the fact that she was not served with notice, the I.A. was allowed on condition of the petitioner deposits Rs.10,000/- before the court below as costs of the respondent. That order was under challenge.

(3.) PETITIONER before the trial court carried the matter in appeal as A.S. 92 of 2006. The appellate court found that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the petition and it allowed the appeal.