The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition due to the petitioner's non-prosecution after the court refused an adjournment for curing a service defect. The court also noted the matter was barred by limitation.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution and barred by limitation.
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 K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938
CRP.No. 137 of 2010 ( )
OP(PMP).NO.230/2002 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
PETITIONER IN C.R.P/APPLICANT IN O.P.(PMP):
A.D.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
GANDHI NAGAR, M.I.G.140, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S) IN C.R.P/RESPONDENT NO.1 & ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN O.P(PMP):
1. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
(DY.COLLECTOR), COCHIN COIMBATORE KAROOR PIPE LINE PROJECT, GOLDEN PLAZA ANNEXE, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN-18.
2. PETRONET CCK LTD., IRUMBANAM INSTALLATION OF BPCL, IRUMBANAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
C.R.P.No.137 of 2010
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2016.
O R D E R
Since the delay application has been dismissed as per order
in Crl.M.A.No.150/2010, the revision is also dismissed for non
prosecution and barred by limitation.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
CM.Appln.No.150 of 2010 in C.R.P.No.137 of 2010
....................................................... Dated this the 26th day of September, 2016.
O R D E R
When the application came up for hearing today in the defect list for not taking steps to complete service on the first respondent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of registered notice issued to the petitioner, he did not come to cure the defect and he has reporting no instructions. This shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. So the application is dismissed for non prosecution.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
A.D.Narayanan Namboothiri
The Competent Authority (Dy. Collector), Cochin Coimbatore Karoor Pipe Line Project
Petronet CCK Ltd.
The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
