The revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear or submit representation on the hearing dates despite being granted ten days time to cure procedural defects.
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to failure to appear and cure defects.
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
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938
CRP.No. 308 of 2014
IA.NO.685/2012 IN CMA 34/2011 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/5TH RESPONDENT:
SUNIL KUMAR M.S, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY KADAVU P.O., KUPPADITHARA AMSOM & DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.SHYAM
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6:
1. VIJAYAN M.C., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUTTY @ KUNHUKUTTY, AGRICULTURIST, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY KADAVU P.O., KUPPADITHARA AMSOM & DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673592.
2. PUSHPAVALLY @ PUSHPA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.VASU, VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE, NEERVARAM P.O., PANAMARAM DESOM, MANNANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670721.
3. SATHEESAN M.K., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUTTY, S/O.LATE KUTTY @ KUNHUKUTTY, AGRICULTRURIST, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, PADINHARATHARA P.O., PADINHARATHARA AMSOM & DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673575.
4. RAVEENDRAN @ RAVI @ SUKUMARAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
5. ANIL KUMAR @ UNNI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUTTY @ KUNHUKUTTY, AGRICULTURIST, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY KADAVU P.O., KUPPADITHARA AMSOM & DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673592.
.....2/-
PJ
..2..
CRP.No. 308 of 2014
6. SANTHOSH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUTTY @ KUNHUKUTTY,AGRICULTURIST, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, KAVILUMPARA VILLAGE, MAYILOTHARA P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, 673513.
7. SUKUMARAN,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUTTY @ KUNHUKUTTY, AGRICULTURIST, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY KADAVU P.O., KUPPADITHARA AMSOM & DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673592.
8. DEVAKI SWASTHAM, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE MOHANAN, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY KADAVU P.O., KUPPADITHARA AMSOM & DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673592.
9. ANOOP, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHANAN, AGRICULTURIST, MANTHANATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY KADAVU P.O., KUPPADITHARA AMSOM & DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 673592.
10. PUTHAYAKODAN RASHEEDA, D/O.SOOPY, PUTHUSSERY KADAVU, KUPPADITHARA, 673592.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
C.R.P. No.308 of 2014
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2016
ORDER
When the case came up for hearing in the defect list today, there
is no representation for the petitioner. Even on the last hearing date namely on 16.8.2016 there was no representation and this court has passed the following order.
“There is no representation for the petitioner. Service not complete in respect of respondents 7 and 10. Petitioner is granted ten days time to cure the defects. If steps is not taken, the revision petition will stand dismissed for non-prosecution.”
In spite of the fact that time was granted to the petitioner to cure the defect even in his absence, no steps taken to cure the defect so far. 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//
P.A. to Judge
ss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of representation despite granted time.
Sunil Kumar M.S
Vijayan M.C.
Pushpavally
Satheesan M.K.
Raveendran
Anil Kumar
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
