The court dismissed this regular second appeal for default as the learned counsel stated there was no instruction from the appellant and that the appellant did not wish to prosecute the matter further. [59 words]
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.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
RSA.No. 778 of 2003 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 35/1995 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 30-09-2002
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 365/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA DATED 21-11-1994
APPELLANT(S):
THUNDATHIL ABRAHAM, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT PATIYOOR AMSOM & DESOM
BY ADV.M.K.SUMOD
ADV.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL, J.
R.S.A. No.778 of 2003
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there is no instruction from the appellant. It is reasonably presumed that the appellant is not interested to prosecute
the matter further. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed for default.
Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
aks/05/12
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
Thundathil Abraham
E.G. Krishnadas
E.G. Anil Kumar
E.G. Remaniyamma
E.G. Syamala
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
