The court dismissed the writ petition on 30.11.2016 for non-prosecution. Despite prior remarks and extensions granted after cost payment, the petitioner failed to pay expenses or take necessary steps to serve the respondent. The court rejected the application for further time.
The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the request for further time was rejected.
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 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 23877 of 2010 (O)
O.S.NO.46/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
PETITIONER(S):
1. MOHANAVALLY, D/O.GOPALAN, KIZHAKKE THAYYIL, KATTOOR MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O.,, ALAPPUZHA.
2. NALINAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 53 YEARS, KIZHAKKE THAYYIL, KATTOOR MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ROHINI, VELIYIL VEEDU, KATTOOR MURI, KALAVOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688522.
2. K.P.PRASANNAN, KANDATHIL VELIYIL HOUSE, KATTOOR MURI, KALAVOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688522.
*ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED
3. HAMSA KUMAR, S/O.VISVANATHAN, KIZHAKKE THAYYIL HOUSE, KATTOOR MURI, KATOOR.P.O., PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.
ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.1.2012 IN IA.1227/2012.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
W.P.(C)No.23877 of 2010
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Cost not paid. Steps also not taken as directed. The counsel for the petitioner prays further time. It was specifically noted that, it was earlier posted on 07.11.2016 for taking steps. On that day there was no representation, in spite of that, time was granted to take steps and noted that if steps is not taken, the petition will stand dismissed for non-prosecution. Again it was posted on 21.11.2016, for comply with the direction, on that day petitioner prayed time and time was granted on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- and it is further noted that no further time will be granted and if steps is not taken the petition will stand dismissed for non-prosecution. In spite of that the petitioner has neither paid the cost nor had they taken steps to complete service on the 3rd respondent. The case is of the year 2010. The attempt of the petitioner is only to prolong the matter and he is not interested in prosecuting the case. So the request is rejected and further time need not be granted and the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
ss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution for non-payment of costs and failure to take required steps.
Whether further time should be granted to the petitioner to complete service and prosecute the petition.
MOHANAVALLY, D/O.GOPALAN
NALINAN, S/O.GOPALAN
ROHINI
K.P.PRASANNAN
HAMSA KUMAR
K. RAMAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
