Dismissed

K.M.Zeinuddin v. Hassainar

Kerala HC31 Aug 2016CRP/575/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the civil revision petition for non-prosecution. Despite multiple directions and opportunities granted to the petitioner to serve notice on respondents and implead legal heirs, no steps were taken to complete these formalities. The court noted the petitioner's lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition (C.R.P. No. 575 of 2001) is dismissed for non-prosecution.

K.M.Zeinuddin Vs Hassainar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/9TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 575 of 2001 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 510/1992 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD DATED 19-12-2000

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER /PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER :-

¶8

K.M. ZAINUDDIN, S/o ABBAS, RESIDING AT MOGRAL IN MOGRAL VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOWRI SHANKAR RAI

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS : -

¶11

HASSINAR, S/o MAMMUNHI.

¶12

BASHEER, S/o HASSINAR.

¶13

ABBAS, S/o ABDULHADER.

¶14

ABDULLAKUNHI, S/o MAHIN.

¶15

(ALL ARE RESIDING AT BALLIYAVALAPPU IN MOGRAL, MOGRAL VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK.)

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DMR/-

¶18

K. RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

¶19

C.R.P. No. 575 of 2001

¶20

Dated this the 31^st day of August, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

There is no representation for the revision petitioner. The

¶23

case was posted in the defect list on 19.02.2015, on that day

¶24

this Court passed the following order:

¶25

“No representation for the petitioner. Issue fresh notice to second respondent in correct address in two weeks as last chance. Post after two weeks.”

¶26

Again it was taken up in the defect list on 17.08.2016,

¶27

on that day also this Court passed the following order:

¶28

“Petitioner prays time. One week's time is granted to the petitioner to take steps to serve notice on R2 by speed post, returnable within ten days. If steps is not taken within that time, the revision will stand dismissed for non-prosecution. If steps is not taken post the case in the defect list on 26.08.2016.”

¶29

Again it was posted to 26.08.2016 and 29.08.2016 for

¶30

taking steps in the defect list. In spite of opportunity given, no steps was taken to complete service on second respondent. It is also seen that an application has been filed to implead the legal representatives of deceased first respondent as I.A. No.2625/2003. There also steps is not complete and as early

¶31

C.R.P. No. 575 of 2001

¶32

¶33

as 31.11.2006 it was noted that if the petitioner is not taking steps within seven days, the petition will stand dismissed. In spite of that, no steps have been taken to complete service on the proposed legal heirs to be impleaded as well in I.A. No.2625/2003. Today also there is no representation for the revision petitioner and no steps taken as directed. So that shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. The Revision Petition is dismissed for non prosecution.

¶34

K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶35

DMR/-

K.M.Zeinuddin v. Hassainar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Zeinuddin v. Hassainar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Venugopal Vs P.T.Uma

Vadakke Puthalath Narayani Amma Vs Vadakkiniyil Krishnan

V.S. Sidharthan Vs the Land Tribunal

M.C.Sarojini Amma Vs P.Gopalan

Joji Joseph Vs Indian Pentecostal Church of God (Ipc)

Avarachan Vs Annamma Varghese