Dismissed
Sathyan v. Prasanna
Kerala HCFAO (RO)/79/2016
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The Court dismissed a first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC for non-prosecution due to the absence of appellants and their counsel, citing a six-year delay in proceedings.
What did the court decide?
The first appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 CPC.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
¶2
PRESENT
¶3
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
¶4
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944
¶5
FAO (RO) NO. 79 OF 2016
¶6
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2016 IN AS 25/2011 OF
¶7
SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR
¶8
OS 324/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR
¶9
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
¶10
1SATHYAN
AGED 63,
KARTHIKA BHAVANAM,
KARAKKADU MURI,
MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK.
2MOHANAN
AGED 42,
MOHANA VILASAM HOUSE,
KARAKKADU MURI,
MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK.
3RAGHAVAN
AGED 42,
S/O.VELUTHAKUNJU,
PALAKKUNNUMODIYIL PADINJARECHARUVIL HOUSE,
KARAKKADU MURI,
MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
SATHYAN
- appellant
MOHANAN
- appellant
RAHAVAN
- appellant
RAJAPPAN
- respondent
PRASANNA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court