Dismissed
K.Vasudevan Sub Judge (Rtd) v. the Secretary, Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund
Kerala HCWP(C)/2362/2014
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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 2362 of 2014 (U)
PETITIONER :
----------
K.VASUDEVAN SUB JUDGE (RTD), HARIKRISHNA KUNNUMPURAM DESOM.P.O, ALUVA-683102.(PARTY IN PERSON).
BY ADV. SRI.K.VASUDEVAN (PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT :
----------
THE SECRETARY, KERALA ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, KOCHI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 2362 of 2014
==================
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2016 J U D G M E N T
The above Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 23.1.2014, on which day, urgent notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent herein. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner has
not bothered to pay process fee for service of notice to the respondent and the Registry has made an endorsement on 23.8.2014, which reads as follows:
“Process not received. Notice not send. Service not complete.”
In spite of this, the petitioner has not so far cared to cure the defects. Moreover, the petitioner has not engaged any Advocate for his appearance and has chosen to prosecute this matter as a partyin-person. When the matter was taken up for consideration, it is seen that the petitioner (party-in-person) was not represented before this Court for the last 2 days. Today also, when the matter was called up for consideration, the petitioner is not present. As already mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner has not even cared to
W.P.(C).2362/14 - : 2 :-
take out notice to the respondent. In these circumstances, it is only to be ordered that the Writ Petition is to be dismissed for nonprosecution. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Writ Petition (Civil)
will stand dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution.
Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///
P.S. to Judge
K.Vasudevan Sub Judge (Rtd)
The Secretary, Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund
Alexander Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court