Gracy v. Jijo Joseph
Case brief
What is this about?
This appeal was dismissed for default because the appellants failed to engage substitute counsel after relinquishing vakalath, appeared neither in person nor through counsel, and did not reappear within the allotted time.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed for default due to failure of the appellants to appear and engage substitute counsel.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939
RFA.No. 259 of 2017 ()
----------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO. 56/2011 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI DATED 31-08-2013) ----------
APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANTS :
1. GRACY, D/O.AUGUSTINE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI (P.O), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 507
2. THERESA JOSE, W/O.JOSE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI (P.O), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 507
3. AJAY JOSE, S/O.GRACY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI (P.O), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 507
- BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Gracy
- appellant
Theresa Jose
- appellant
Ajay Jose
- respondent
Jijo Joseph
- respondent
Johnson.A.X. @ Joy
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court