The High Court of Kerala dismissed the regular second appeal as time barred. A prior stay application for condonation of delay was also dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of adversely to the appellant.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934
RSA.No. 30 of 2012 ()
AS.61/2005 of DISTRICT COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OS.2/2000 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, RANJINI, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, THRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O.DAMODARAN, SARADA MANDIRAM, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, THRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------R.S.A. No.30 of 2012
-------------------------------------Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2012. JUDGMENT
I have today dismissed C.M.Appln.No.22 of 2012 for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
Hence this Second Appeal is dismissed as time barred.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal was maintainable given the delay in filing.
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned under applicable rules.
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
VIJAYA KUMAR
THOMAS P JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
