The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for lack of remitted court fee and absence of instructions from the appellant's counsel.
Appeal rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
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
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943
RFA NO. 164 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2020 IN OS 24/2016 OF
SUB COURT, QUILANDY
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
MATATHODI MUHAMMAD ALI,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMAD MUSALIYAR,
MATATHODI HOUSE,
THIRUVEKAPPURA AMSOM DESOM,
OTTAPPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 309.
BY ADVS.
V.SREENATH
P.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
IDATHATTA ANUSHA,
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. MOITHU,
IDATHATTA HOUSE,
KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM PANTHALAYANI VILLAGE,
KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 305.
BY ADVS.
RAGHUL SUDHEESH
C.R.SUDHEESH
J.LAKSHMI
K.J.GLAXON
AMAL JEES ALEX
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA NO. 164 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Balance court fee is not remitted, though
the appeal was admitted as early as on
07.09.2021. The learned counsel for the
appellant reported no instruction. Hence,
the appeal is rejected under Order VII Rule
11 C.P.C.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal ought to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for lack of proper court fee and instructions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MATATHODI MUHAMMAD ALI
IDATHATTA ANUSHA
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court