The Kerala High Court dismissed a matrimonial appeal for non-prosecution due to persistent defects in serving notice on the respondent. The Court held there is insufficient reason to keep the matter pending under Article 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
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:
&
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1940
Mat.Appeal.No. 120 of 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 82/2003 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
P.SEETHA, 54 YEARS,D/O.P.RAMAN, SHARMILA NIVAS, VENNEER VAYAL, KARAPPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE (KURUVISSERI AMSOM DESOM)
BY ADV.SRI.K.M.FIROZ
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1.:
K.MALU, 75 YEARS, W/O.P.RAMAN, CORPORATION SWEEPER WORK, AMBEDKAR COLONY,, MALAPPURAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE (NEDUNGOTTOOR AMSOM, DESOM)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M. SHAFFIQUE & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ.
========================== Mat.Appeal No. 120 of 2009
====================
Dated this, the 7th day of August, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
Notice was ordered in the above case on 2/12/2009. Notice was returned with the endorsement that the addressee could not be found, which is taken note of by the office on 2/1/2010. Thereafter, it was notified before the Registry as defect. There was no representation and the Registrar (Judicial) had directed the matter to be posted before the Court on 21/7/2011. On 6/2/2013, this Court directed issuance of fresh notice in the present correct address and the appellant was given permission to take notice under Order V Rule 20 and also through the Advocate who was appearing for the respondent before the Family Court. There was defect in the steps taken and by an endorsement dated 11/7/2014, it is noticed that the appellant was directed to cure the defects within two weeks. Steps were again taken, but it was returned with the endorsement “not found”. The office endorsement would show that though
Mat.Appeal No.120/09
-:2:-
notice was ordered in the correct address, no such steps were taken. Again the matter was placed before the Registry and the counsel submitted that fresh steps will be taken to complete service within two weeks. Time was granted and it was also noted that if steps are not taken within the said time, the matter has to be posted before Court. The aforesaid endorsement was made on 20/6/2014. Further endorsement of the office would show that the process was not filed in the present correct address of the respondent and no process was taken to serve notice to the counsel, who was appearing before the Family Court. Accordingly, it was recorded that steps are not taken and the defects were not cured. Learned counsel for the appellant again seeks a week's time to cure the defects.
Mat.Appeal No.120/09
-:3:-
year 2009, should be kept pending before this Court.
Appeal is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
Rp
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
P.SEETHA
K.MALU
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
