Dismissed
K.O.George Kutty v. N.Thampan
Kerala HCCRP/285/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938
CRP.No. 285 of 2010 ( )
AS 128/1999 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA. OS 232/1998 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
K.O.GEORGE KUTTY, RATION RETAIL MERCHANT, KARIPPUZHA, FROM KADAVIL KIZHAKKETHI, KADAVOOR MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. N.THAMPAN, THATTARAMBALATH, PUNNAMOODU AGENCIES, FROM VENUGOPOALAYATHIL, KADAVOOR MURI,, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE.
2. VEENA, DO..DO...
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHAJ
SRI.SAJJU.S
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
C.R.P.No.285 of 2010
.............................................................. Dated this the 14th day of November, 2016.
ORDER
When the civil revision petition came up for hearing today in the defect list, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no instruction has been received from the party. On the last hearing date on 07.11.2016 there was no representation and the following order has been passed:
“No representation for the petitioner at the time it was taken up in the afternoon. Petitioner is granted one week time to take steps to produce draft publication as well as process for effecting affixture as directed by this court as per order dated 27.10.216. If steps is not taken as directed within that time the petition will stand dismissed for non-prosecution. Post on 14.11.2016.”
In spite of that, time is being given to the petitioner to take steps from 27.10.2016 onwards, there was no representation. That shows that, the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. So the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)
//True Copy//
ss
P.A. to Judge
K.O. George Kutty
N. Thampan
Veena
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court