Dismissed

Lavanya Chandrasekhar v. v.R.Govindanunni

Kerala HC29 Sept 2021RFA/809/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the regular first appeal for non-prosecution. The Court held that transposition under Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC is generally not applicable to appeals governed by the law of limitation. Since the respondent died and no legal heirs sought to be impleaded as co-appellants, all applications and the appeal were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

All applications for impleadment and transposition were dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Lavanya Chandrasekhar Vs v.R.Govindanunni — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 809 OF 2009 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 25.09.2009 IN OS No. 401/2003 OF

¶7

I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶9

LAVANYA CHANDRASEKHAR,

¶10

D/o LATE K.M.RAVUNNI MENON, POURNAMI, PANDARAKAVU, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD

¶11

BY ADVS SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

¶12

SMT. K.K.PREETHA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶14

1 V.R.GOVINDANUNNI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/o LATE K.M.RAVUNNI MENON, DWARAKA, NEAR GANAPATH HIGH SCHOOL, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE- 673003, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE THALUK

¶15

2 PRASANNA SANKARANKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, D/o LATE K.M.RAVUNNI MENON, 10E/2 USHUS, SECOND STREET, KAMATCHI AMMAN KOIL STREET, SRI NAGAR, RAMANATHAPURAM P.O., COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU.

¶16

3 SUVARNA MOHANDAS, AGED 54 YEARS, D/o LATE K.M.RAVUNNI MENON, BINDU COTTAGE, ELAPULLY POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

4 V.R.BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/o LATE K.M.RAVUNNI MENON, BINDU COTTAGE, ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR R2 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.S.M.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶19

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA No.809 of 2009

JUDGMENT

Both the appellant and counsel remained absent, though

¶24

the case is of the year 2009. It is fairly submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the appellant already abandoned the appeal. As such, I.A.No.1/2019 was filed for transposition of first respondent as co-appellant. But, subsequently he passed away on 18.3.2020. Thereon I.A.Nos.1/2021 and 2/2021 were filed for impleadment and setting aside abatement by the legal heirs.

¶25

Transposition under Rule 1A of Order XXIII C.P.C.

¶26

ordinarily be applied to a suit for partition or a common interest involved with any defendant identical with that of plaintiff. But, Order XXIII Rule 1A does not, by itself, inhibit any right with a party to apply for transposition, especially when the appeal is governed by law of limitation

¶27

and not based on any continuing cause of action. It must

¶28

be read along with Rule 2 of Order XXIII C.P.C. which will

¶29

not save the period of limitation. But, a suit for partition is an exception, since there is a continuing

¶30

RFA No.809 of 2009

¶31

¶32

cause of action, wherein there is no much difference in the status of the party, either plaintiff or defendant. But,

¶33

when an appeal is preferred either by any of the parties to the suit or by an aggrieved person, they are governed by the law of limiation, wherein there is no scope for

¶34

application of any continuing cause of action or identical interests.

¶35

Since respondent No.1 passed away, it is not fit to

¶36

transpose him as co-appellant or additional appellant. None of the legal heirs sought to be impleaded made any application to that effect. Hence, all the applications will stand dismissed. The appeal will also stand dismissed

for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Lavanya Chandrasekhar v. v.R.Govindanunni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavanya Chandrasekhar v. v.R.Govindanunni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cherupushpam Vs Leelamony

Leelamony Vs Cherupushpam

Vinnamchathayil Kuttan Vs Vinnamchathayil Chandran

Thatha Vs P.C.Arunachalam Thankappa

Neenamani C.P. Vs Rajamani C.P.

Mohandas Vs Union of India Owning Southern Railway