This judgment records the dismissal of a second appeal as time barred after the relevant condonation application was dismissed. It also notes the dismissal of a separate condonation petition where counsel announced the matter was settled.
The second appeal is dismissed as time barred. The condonation petition is dismissed as the matter is settled and not being pressed.
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 V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
SA.No. 754 of 2001()
-------------------AS.158/1998 of PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.225/1980 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS 4 TO 10,12,15,20 AND 21 IMPLEADED AS APPELLANTS IN APPEAL AS BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF AND HEIRS OF 2ND APPELLANT SINCE DECEASED::
P.O. NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
SA.No. 754 of 2001
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2, 4 TO 15/DEFENDANTS 1, 2 &OTHERS SUBSEQUENTLY IMPLEADED:
SA.No. 754 of 2001
SA.No. 754 of 2001
(RESPONDENTS 15 TO 22 ARE ADDL. APPELLANT NOS. 3,11,13,14,16 TO 19. THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN DIED AFTER THE APPEAL. RESPONDENTS 23 TO 25 ARE LEGAL HEIRS. )
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = S.A.No.754 of 2001
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
In view of the dismissal of C.M. Application No.1775/2001,
this second appeal is dismissed as time barred. No costs.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M.Appln.No.1775 of 2001
In S.A.No.754 of 2001
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008
ORDER
When this petition to condone the delay came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has since been settled between the parties and that he is not pressing the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
3 issues framed by the court
whether the second appeal was maintainable as it was dismissed as time barred following the dismissal of the condonation application.
whether the condonation petition for delay was pressible or dismissed as the matter was settled.
the disposal of the condonation petition where counsel stated the matter was settled and not being pressed.
PUSHAKARAN V.R. AND OTHERS
KARUNAKARAN AND OTHERS
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
