The High Court of Kerala dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and concurrent CM Application for non-prosecution after finding lack of instructions from the petitioner and inactivity by the parties.
W/2 Petition and CM Application dismissed for non-prosecution.
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
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/25TH SRAVANA, 1938
CRP.No. 498 of 2012
OS 1736/2011 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFFS COURT, TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT:
GRACEAMMA THOMAS, D/O.THOMAS JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.62, THILAK NAGAR, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.USHA KUMARI, SUDHEERAN, NEAR KUSAVARKKAL UPS, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS:
1. SREEDEVI, W/O.LATE MOHANKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOVALAKOM VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.
2. UNNIKRISHNAN (MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS, S/O.SREEDEVI, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SREEDEVI, THE 1ST RESPONDENT, RESIDING AT KOVALAKOM VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.
3. PARVATHY (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS, D/O.SREEDEVI, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SREEDEVI THE 1ST RESPONDENT, RESIDING AT KOVALAKOM VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
C.M. Application No.698 of 2012 in C.R.P. No.498 of 2012
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2016
ORDER
C.M. Application No. 698 of 2012
When the case come up for hearing today in the defect list, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions from the party and steps was not taken in spite of opportunity given. It is seen from the proceedings paper that notice was ordered in the C.M.Application as early as on 22.11.2012, but steps was not taken and it was posted before Registrar (Judicial) and time was granted on 5.9.2014. In spite of that, steps was not taken. That was how the case
come up before this court today in the defect list. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions from the party and it appears that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the revision. Considering the conduct of the party, this court is also of the view that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. So the C.M.Application No.698/2012 is hereby dismissed for non- prosecution.
C.R.P. No.498 of 2012
Since C.M.Application No.698/2012 has been dismissed for nonprosecution, the revision is also dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
ss
Graceamma Thomas
Sree Devi
Unnikrishnan
Parvathy
K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
