Lukson Francis Augustine vs Fr. George Joseph — 100036/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O43. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 30th April 2026.
CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
CNR: KLKT010027942023
e-Filing Number
02-06-2023
Filing Number
101159/2023
Filing Date
03-06-2023
Registration No
100036/2023
Registration Date
03-06-2023
Court
Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I, Kottayam
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lukson Francis Augustine
Adv. JEROME P J, JEROME P J
Respondent(s)
Fr. George Joseph
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I, Kottayam
Disposed
Order/Judgement
For Further Hearing
For Hearing
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 20-04-2026 | For Further Hearing |
| 17-04-2026 | For Hearing |
| 06-04-2026 | For Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 100036/2023 The Additional District Judge in Kottayam dismissed civil appeals filed by defendant Lukson Francis Augustine challenging a lower court's rejection of his applications to restore a set-aside petition in a foreign judgment enforcement suit. The court found the defendant failed to satisfactorily explain a 1,695-day delay in filing his restoration application and determined the appeals were not maintainable under procedural law, ultimately confirming the lower court's order with costs against the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100036/2023 The Additional District Judge in Kottayam dismissed civil appeals filed by defendant Lukson Francis Augustine challenging a lower court's rejection of his applications to restore a set-aside petition in a foreign judgment enforcement suit. The court found the defendant failed to satisfactorily explain a 1,695-day delay in filing his restoration application and determined the appeals were not maintainable under procedural law, ultimately confirming the lower court's order with costs against the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts