The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed against a judgment on interest for delayed retirement benefits because both the revision petitioner and their counsel were absent, leading to a finding of non-prosecution.
The revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner and counsel.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938
CRP.No. 413 of 2011 (C)
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN AS 89/2008 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE, DATED 11-02-2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 569/2007 of ADDL. MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE DATED 04-02-2008
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -
P.N.VELAYUDHAN, S/O. KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT 28/2688, PALANDANKANDY PARAMBA, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, KALARIKKAL PARAMBA, VARATTIAK, POST KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3/DEFENDANTS: -
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SWAMYDAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
C.R.P. No. 413 of 2011
Dated this the 07th day of March, 2017
ORDER
This revision is filed against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.89 of 2008 dated 11.02.2011 of the 3rd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. The above said judgment was rendered against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.569 of 2007 dated 04.02.2008 by the Additional Munsiff-I, Kozhikode. This revision was filed in the year 2011.
C.R.P. No. 413 of 2011
2
year 2007. The absence of revision petitioner and his counsel would tell upon what is behind it and as such the revision is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution.
In the result, the revision is dismissed for non
prosecution.
P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
DMR/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition is maintainable when the petition to no party and no advocate appeared on the date of hearing.
P.N.VELAYUDHAN
THE CORPORATION OF CALICUT
THE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS
STATE OF KERALA
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
