Dismissed
Joseph (Joy) v. Esther (Shirly)
Kerala HCMFA/133/2001
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
MFA.No. 133 OF 2001()
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOSEPH (JOY), ODAYIL VEEDU, THANKASSERY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF - ATTORNEY HOLDER GOPINATHAN NAIR, MANCHU BHAVAN, KIZHAVOOR CHERY, THRIKKOVIL VATTOM, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
ESTHER (SHIRLY), ADHIKARI VILA VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., KUMBALAM, KOLLAM.
ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON 02/12/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.F.A. NO. 133 OF 2001
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
When this case was taken up for consideration yesterday, neither the appellant nor the counsel was present. There was no representation also. Hence we adjourned the matter to today. Today also the appellant or his counsel was not present in the Court. There was no representation also.
Hence called the name of the parties. Dismissed for default.
P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE)
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE)
knc/-
Joseph (Joy), Odayil Veedu, Thankassery, Kollam
Esther (Shirly), Adhikari Vila Veedu, Mulavana P.O., Kumbalam, Kollam
P.R. Raman
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court