Court dismissed a civil revision petition for non-prosecution due to party non-cooperation and lack of steps to complete service on the respondent. A separate order also barred the petition as being time-barred following a dismissed delay petition.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed for non-prosecution and 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. 17 of 2012 ()
AA 115/2003 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA. O.A.170/98 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, CHERTHALA.
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:
1. PANKAJAKSHY(60), D/O.MADHAVI, KOTHAPARAMBU, WARD NO.4, PUNNAPRA THEKKE PANCHAYATH, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA PARAVOOR VILLAGE.
2. KOMALAM(55), D/O.MADHAVI, KOTHAPARAMBU, WARD NO.4, PUNNAPRA THEKKE PANCHAYATH, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA PARAVOOR VILLAGE.
3. RAGINI(50), D/O.MADHAVI, KOTHAPARAMBU, WARD NO.4, PUNNAPRA THEKKE PANCHAYATH, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA PARAVOOR VILLAGE.
4. SUDHAKARAN(45), S/O.MADHAVI, KOTHAPARAMBU, WARD NO.4, PUNNAPRA THEKKE PANCHAYATH, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA PARAVOOR VILLAGE.
5. GEETHAMMA(50), D/O.MADHAVI, KOTHAPARAMBU, WARD NO.4, PUNNAPRA THEKKE PANCHAYATH, PARAVOOR MURI, PUNNAPRA PARAVOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY:
1. SUKUMARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, HARISANS MALAYALAM ESTATE LTD, MUNKILAR ESTATE, MUNNAR DIVISION, MUNNAR - 685 612.
--2--
--2--
CRP.No. 17 of 2012 ()
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN
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.17 of 2012
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2016.
O R D E R
Since the delay petition has been dismissed as per the order in C.M.Appln.No.22/2012, the revision is also dismissed for non
prosecution and barred by limitation.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................. C.M.Appln.No.22 of 2012 in C.R.P.No.17 of 2012
....................................................... 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, counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that parties are not co-operating to take steps in spite of intimation given to them. That shows that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the case. So the application is dismissed for non prosecution.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition is maintainable given the lack of prosecution and service defect.
SUKUMARAN
THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
K. RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
