High Court Kerala High Court

Vasu vs Kuttimalu

Kerala High Court
Vasu vs Kuttimalu
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA No. 1261 of 2005()


1. VASU, S/O.NEDIYEDATH APPU VAIDYER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KUTTIMALU, W/O.RAMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DHAKSHAYINI, D/O.RAMAN,

3. BALAN, S/O.RAMAN,

4. SHANMUGHAM, S/O.RAMAN,

5. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.RAMAN,

6. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. RAMAN,

7. SAKTHIDHARAN,  S/O.RAMAN,

8. CHANDRIKA, D/O.RAMAN,

9. RAVI, S/O.RAMAN,

10. ACHU, S/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN APPU @

11. RAGHAVAN, S/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN APPU @

12. GANGADHARAN, S/O.AYINIPULLY VELAPPAN,

13. AMMU, D/O.KAPPUR KARUVAN  SANKARAN,

14. SANKARAN NARAYANAN, S/O.MANATHALA

15. SAROJINI SANKARATHMAJAN,

16. LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O.VELAYUDHAN,

17. GOPALAN, K.S.R.T.C., EMPLOYEE,

18. RUGMINI, D/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN

19. MEENAKSHY, D/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN

20. DHANANJAYAN, S/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN

21. SEKHARAN,

22. GEETHA,

23. PRAKASAN,

24. SUBHADRA, WQ/O.KUTTINARAYANAN,

25. VALLY, W/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN KUJUNNI,

26. LAKSHMIKUTTY,

27. SOBHANA, W/O.OTHALUR SUBRAMNIAN,

28. PUSHKARAN, S/O.,MANATHALA KARUVAN

29. PREMATH, D/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN

30. INDIRABAI, D/O.MANATHALA KARUVAN

31. THANKAMANI,

32. KRISHNAKUMAR,

33. VIJITHA,

34. DEVAKY, W/O.BHARATHAN,

35. MANI @ SOMAN, S/O.BHARATHAN,

36. SINDHU SUBRAMANIAN, D/O.BHARATHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :/  /

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                       R.S.A.No.1261 of 2005
                  -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008



                              JUDGMENT

On 1.1.2008, two weeks’ time was granted to cure the

defects. The defects were not cured. When the case came in the

defect list on 17.1.2008, it was submitted on behalf of the

appellant that the defects are being cured. The case was

ordered to be posted on 25.1.2008, if the defects were not cured

by them. Apparently, the case was not posted on 25.1.2008. But

it was posted only today. Till now, the defects are not cured.

The counsel for the appellant seeks for further time. The request

is refused. However, showing utmost leniency, two weeks’ time

is granted to the appellant to cure the defects and to apply for

restoration of the second appeal.

The second appeal is dismissed for default.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
csl

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

OP NO.848/1995

JUDGMENT

28/1/2008