Muhammed Rafeek v. Thomas
Case brief
What is this about?
The Second Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as no representation was filed by the appellant despite being given an opportunity to cure defects.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; all pending interlocutory applications dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939
RSA.No. 722 of 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 30-09-2009 IN AS 55/2002 of SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 24-07-2001 IN OS 109/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT NO.1/1ST PLAINTIFF
MUHAMMED RAFEEK, S/O.UMMER KUNJU, THEKETHILVEEDU, NADAYARA DESOM, VARKALA, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV.SRI.R.ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. THOMAS, S/O.OUSEPH, THODUVE PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VARKALA DESOM AND VILLAGE.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
MUHAMMED RAFEEK
- respondent
THOMAS
- respondent
OMANA THOMAS
- appellant
NAZEEM BEEVI
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court