Beebi v. Suliman
Case brief
What is this about?
This appeal was dismissed for default as no adjournment was granted despite a representation requested by the appellants.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932
AS.No. 913 of 1998(C) --------------------OS.552/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD ....................
APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS:
-----------------------------------------------
- *1. BEEBI, W/O. HANEEFA, RESIDING AT KURICHAMKULAM, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ( D I E D).
2. SAREEBHA, D/O. HANEEFA, RESIDING AT ANAMARI, NADUVANCHIRA, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3. NURUDHEEN, S/O.HANEEFA (BUSINESS) RESIDING AT KURICHAMKULAM, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
4. PATHUMUTHU, W/O. ISAQ ROWTHER, RESIDING AT PETTATHODI, PUTHUPPALLITHERUVU, NOORANI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Beebi w/o Haneefa
- appellant
Sareebha d/o Haneefa
- appellant
Nurudheen s/o Haneefa
- appellant
Pathumuthu w/o Isaq Rowther
- appellant
Kemal s/o Haneefa
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court