State v. Leela
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay and the subsequent civil appeal arising from an acquisition proceedings. The court noted the order was dismissed despite lack of merit against the relied-on judgment, as separate steps were taken regarding decree defects.
What did the court decide?
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
TUESDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1929
LA.App..No. 692 of 2001()
------------------------LAR.118/1997 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR ....................
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -----------
STATE OF KERALA
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:
| 1. | LEELA, W/O.GORALIV PERUMPADANNA |
AN, PA | ZHAVELIKKATH, |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. | NIRMALA, D/O. | DO. | |
| 3. | SIVAN, S/O. | DO. | |
| 4. | BALAN, S/O. | DO. | |
| 5. | AJITHA, D/O. | DO. | |
| 6. | RUGMINI, W/O.DUDA | CHAN, | DO. |
| 7. | SUBRAMONIAN, S/O. | DO. | |
| 8. | RAJEE, D/O. | DO. | |
| 9. | GANESHAN, S/O. |
DO. | |
| 10. | RADHA, D/O. | DO. | |
| 11. | SUMATHY, S/O. KRIS | HNAN, | DO. |
| 12. | LAKSHMY, D/O. | DO. | |
| 13. | GOPALAN, S/O.KRISH | NAN, | DO. |
| 14. | SASI. S/O. | DO. |
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
whether application for condonation of 29 days delay in filing appeal should be allowed
Parties & counsel
- appellant
STATE OF KERALA
- respondent
LEELA and others
Coram
KURIAN JOSEPH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court