Dismissed

Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham v. K.P.Padmanabhan Nair

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016RFA/288/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the regular first appeal of Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham for default. No representation was filed by the appellant's counsel at the hearing on 18.03.2016, and the condition of remitting costs at the Ernakulam Mediation Centre by a previous order was not complied with.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for default.

Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. HARIPRASAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶6

RFA.No. 288 of 2012 ( )

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 2/2008 of DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA DATED 11-03-2009

¶8

APPELLANT(S):

¶9

AKHILA BHARATHA AYYAPPA SEVA SANGHAM, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V SURESH PLACHERIL HOUSE, ADIMALY.P.O., IDUKKI DIST.

¶10

K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. VELUPILLAI, GOPI BHAVAN, POST POOPPARA

¶11

SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DIST.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFFS:

¶14

K.P.PADHMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, KILIMANGALATHU HOUSE POOPPARA KARA, POOPPARA.P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DIST.

¶15

K.R. AJI, S/O. RAJU, 36 YEARS, KUPPASSERIL HOUSE POOPPARA, POOPPARA.P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DIST.

¶16

S.SURESH, S/O. SIVAN, 37 YEARS, ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOPPARA, POOPPARA.P.O. UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶17

K.K.MOHANAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAN, KARICKAL HOUSE, POOPPARA KARA POOPPARA.P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ. ----------------------------------R.F.A.No.288 of 2012

¶20

----------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Antony Dominic, J.

¶23

By order dated 24.2.2016, while allowing C.M.Appln.306/12, a condition requiring remittance of costs at the Ernakulam Mediation Centre and production of memo thereof was ordered. However, till date, memo regarding payment of costs has not been produced by the petitioner. Today when the matter is taken up, there is no representation for the appellant and the appellant is also absent. In such circumstances, this appeal is dismissed for default.

¶24

kkb.

¶25

/True copy/

Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham v. K.P.Padmanabhan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham v. K.P.Padmanabhan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew Vs Kuttappan

Nafeesath Beevi Vs T.P.Ayissu

Krishnankutty Nair Vs Aravindakshan

Kunhikrishnan Nair Vs a.C.Gangadhara Menon

Gulabi, Kasaragod Dist. Vs Balakrishna Rai,Kasaragod

Khadeeja Umma Vs Muhammed @ Kunhappu