Radhakrishnan v. Padmaja
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a second appeal for non-prosecution because the appellant's counsel was absent and failed to implead legal representatives of deceased respondents after relinquishing vakalat.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 18TH MAGHA, 1940
RSA.No. 112 of 2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07-07-2006 IN AS 11/2001 of PINCIPAL SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12-11-1999 IN OS 2073/1996 of PINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFFS:
RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O DIVAKARAN, DIVAKARA MANDIRAM, VELAR LANE,, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution due to absence of legal representation for the appellant?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O DIVAKARAN, DIVAKARA MANDIRAM
- respondent
PADMAJA, W/O DIVAKARAN, DIVAKARA MANDIRAM
- respondent
PADMAJA, D/O RAJAMMA DIVAKARA MANDIRAM
- respondent
BALACHANDRAN, S/O DIVAKARAN DIVAKARA MANDIRAM
- respondent
RADHAMONY, D/O RAJAMMA DIVAKARA MANDIRAM
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court