Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUTHIRUMMAL POKKAI versus KUTHIRUMMAL KUNHAMBU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KUTHIRUMMAL POKKAI v. KUTHIRUMMAL KUNHAMBU - SA No. 305 of 1994(C) [2007] RD-KL 16922 (7 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

SA No. 305 of 1994(C)

1. KUTHIRUMMAL POKKAI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KUTHIRUMMAL KUNHAMBU
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO

For Respondent :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :07/09/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.


===========================
C.M.Appl.537/07,I.A.1574/07 & I.A.1575/07in S.A.No.305/1994 & S.A.No.305/1994
===========================

Dated this the 7th day of September,2007

O R D E R

These petitions are filed to condone the delay to set aside the abatement and to implead supplemental appellant as additional second appellant, being the legal heir of original appellant who died on 5.6.2004. The application is filed after a delay of 1036 days. Case of the petitioner is that O.P.16966/1997 was pending and impleading application was filed only in that case and by mistake no impleading application was filed in the second appeal and it was not wilful; but due to an oversight and therefore delay is to be condoned and abatement is to be set aside and he is to be impleaded. Petition is opposed by respondents.

2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents, it is seen that 2 the suit itself is only one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and no decree was granted in his favour by trial court or first appellate court. It is also admitted that claim for tenancy raised by appellant was disputed and it is pending before this court in C.R.P.193/2007. It is submitted that the original order granted in favour of appellant was set aside by Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) and remanded to the Land Tribunal, which is challenged before this court originally by filing a writ petition and in view of the decision of the Apex Court it was withdrawn and a Civil Revision Petition is pending. As the suit is only for injunction, at this stage I do not find it necessary to condone delay or to set aside the abatement. The petitions are dismissed as abated. Consequently 3 the appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of the appeal will not prevent appellant from seeking a decree on the strength of title, if any. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

W.P.(C).NO. /06

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.