Vattakandy Madhavan v. T.Sivaprakash
Case brief
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:…
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
RSA.No. 224 of 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 24.01.2007 IN AS 106/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE- II
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 20.12.2002 IN OS 833/1992 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-II
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT NOS. 1,2,4 TO 6,8 & 9
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT NOS.3 & 10:
1. T.SIVAPRAKASH, S/O.KANARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, THIPPILIKKATTU NADERATH (H), VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
2
RSA.No. 224 of 2008
2. PAYYERI KRISHNAN KUTTY,
3. SELVARAJ, S/O.MANIYAN ACHARI, AGED 43 YEARS, KASABA AMSOM KARIYAKKUNNU DESOM,
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------R.S.A.No.224 of 2008
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The matter came up on 28.05.2012 wherein the learned Judge recorded that the appellants and counsel were absent. Steps were not taken. It was posted for disposal after two weeks. Again, the matter came up on 7.9.2012 and on that day also, there was no representation. The matter came up again on 12.9.2012 and on that day, there was no representation. Today also, the matter comes up in the defect list and there is no representation. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
SD/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE
JV
Vattakandy Madhavan and others
T. Sivaprasaksh and others
A. Hariprasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court