Dismissed
G.Ponnappan Pillai v. Padmavathy Amma
Kerala HCCRP/890/2004
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938
CRP.No. 890 of 2004
I.A.NO. 164/97 IN O.P.(LUNACY) NO. 81/1991 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER :
G.PONNAPPAN PILLAI, MUNNAMMELATHIL VEEDU THRIKKOVILVATTAM CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTAM VILLAGE, MUKHATHALA P.O. KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 :
1. PADMAVATHY AMMA, GIRIJA BHAVAN, VADAKKUMKARA KIZHAKKE CHERRY, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., (ESTATE), PADANILAM, KOLLAM.
2. SMT. SARSAMMA AMMA, P.KALALAYA, (KAIPPALLIL PUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU), ULIYAKKOVIL, KOLLAM.
3. SAROJINI AMMA.P, PADMAMADATHIL VEEDU, MANAKKADU, VADAKKEVILA P.O. KOLLAM.
4. SOMAN PILLAI.G., LINE BUILDING, NEAR KOIKKAL HIGH SCHOOL, 2ND STONE, KOLLAM.
5. KRISHNAKUTTY PILLAI(EX-SERVICEMAN), ABDURALAYAM, KIZHAVOOR CHERRY, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM.
R1 BY ADVS. SMT.T.V.NEEMA
SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
CRP.No. 890 of 2004
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSBOOK OF THE CANARA BANK.
ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE TRANSFER OF MONEY.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msd.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
C.R.P.No.890 of 2004
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2016.
O R D E R
When the petition came up for hearing in the defect list, counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he has no instruction from the party. That shows that the party is not interested in proceeding with the matter. The above submission is recorded and the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
/true copy/
P.S to Judge
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
....................................... C.R.P.No.890 of 2004 ........................................ 16th day of November, 2016.
O R D E R
G. PONNAPPAN PILLAI
PADMAVATHY AMMA
SMT. SARSAMMA AMMA
SAROJINI AMMA.P
SOMAN PILLAI.G.
KRISHNAKUTTY PILLAI
K. RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court