(2012) 269 KLR 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI 

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/14TH BHADRA 1934 

FAO.No. 68 of 2012 () 

--------------------- 

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NO.3043/2011 DATED 02.11.2011 IN OS NO.34/1999 OF PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/3RD DEFENDANT: 

----------------------------------- 

GERALDINE JACOB, D/O. ADA ELIZABETH MIRANDA, 608/29 NORTHERN HEIGHTS DRIVE, RICHMOND HILL, ON L4B 4L8, CANADA REP. BY POWER OF ATORNEY HOLDER ALBERT MANUEL THOMAS, S/O. LATE DAVID RAJAN THOMAS, DEOGARTIAS, F3A POTHUJANAM ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS 

RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1,2 & 4 TO 11: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1. BRENDA BABARA FRANCIS, D/O. LAE ADA ELIZABETH MIRANDA, HALCYON PAKATTUVILA KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER CAPT ALEXANDER FRANCIS HB 27, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI.36. 

2. ADRIAN G MIRANDA S/O. LATE ALFRED H. MIRANDA, RESIDING AT HALCYON PAKATTUVILA, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 

3. VINITA R. PENTKAR, 31 B 2ND FLOOR, EAST MARREDPALLY SECUNDERABAD 500 326. 

4. MRS. DOROTHY MIRANDA, S 482, AIR INDIA II KALINA, SANTA CRUZ WEST BOMBAY NOW RESIDING AT SAGAR PLAZA CHS (CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD) OPP MALWANI CHURCH MALWANI VILLAGE, OFF MARVE ROAD MALALD WEST 1. MUMBAI 400 095. FAO.No. 68 of 2012 () 

5. NIGEL MIRANDA, RESIDING DO NOW AT PO BOX 62685, DUBAI, UAE. 

6. KIM MIRANDA D' SOUZA, S 482, AIR INDIA COLONY, II KALINA SANTA CRUS, BOMBAY 400 029 NOW AT 11026, 82 AVENUE DELTA BC: B4C2B3. CANADA. 

7. ALNIA AYESHA GOYAL, RESIDING -DO- 

8. MRS. MARISSA THAYUMAN, PB NO. 1700, DUBAI, UAE NOW AT C/O. GERARD GABRIEL, 15/1 EAST MARRED PALLY SECUNDERABAD 500 326. 

9. GERARD GABRIEL, 15/1 EAST MARRED PALLY, SECUNDERABAD 500 326. 

10. MRS. KAREN GABRIEL, RESIDING -DO- 

11. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KAKKANAD VEEDU, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. 

BY ADV. SRI. G.ANAND (PARTY-IN-PERSON) 

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA FAO.No. 68 of 2012 () 

APPENDIX 

PETITIONER'(S) ANNEXURES: 

• NIL 

RESPONDENT'(S) ANNEXURES: 

• ANNEX 1 NOTARISED DEED OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF OF GOKUL ANAND, ADVOCATE. 
• ANNEX 2 CERTIFIED COPIES OF VAKALATS OF D4 TO D10 IN TRIAL COURT. 
• ANNEX 3 RPAD LATTERS OF D4 TO D10 TO THIS HON'BLE COURT. 
• ANNEX 4 JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 
• ANNEX 5 ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.28041/2008(L) 
• ANNEX 6 ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA NO.744/2010. 

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA 

"CR" 

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. 

------------------------------------------ 

F.A.O. No: 68 OF 2012 

------------------------------------------ 

Dated this the 5th day of September, 2012 

Head Note:-

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Application to set aside  exparte decree - Doctrine of Merger - the application to setting aside exparte decree could not have been entertained by the trial court after the decision of first appeal.

J U D G M E N T 

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 

OS No:34/1999 of the Principal Sub Court led to RFA No:744/2010. That was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.05.2011. The doctrine of merger repeatedly reflected in jurisprudence governing multi-tier adjudicatory processes advises that the trial court could not have thereafter touched the decree that it had passed and which was subject of RFA No:744/2010. We also notice that the said first appeal was decided by this Court on merits. Yet, the 3rd defendant moved an application to set aside the decree of the trial court on the ground that it is passed exparte. For reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned order, that application under Order IX Rule 13 was dismissed. This FAO is filed against that order. Aforesaid is sufficient to state that no application under Order IX Rule 13 could have been filed before the trial court after its decree had merged in the decree of this Court in RFA No:744/2010. Series of precedents, including law laid by the Apex Court, would stand to advise that the application under Order IX Rule 13 could not have been entertained by the trial court after the decision of RFA No:744/2010. Under such circumstances, we find no ground to entertain this appeal. It fails. 

In the result, FAO No:68/2012 is dismissed. No costs. 

Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE 

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE 

bka/- //True copy// PA to Judge