K.P.Veerankutty vs Aalikkaparambil Sankaran’S on 30 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 1115 of 2003()


1. K.P.VEERANKUTTY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AALIKKAPARAMBIL SANKARAN'S
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUKU.

3. AALIKKAPARAMBIL KRISHNANKUTTY

4. RAMAN.

5. MANI, S/O AALIKKAPARAMBIL RAMAN

6. KURUVILA, S/O. PUTHAN VEETTIL KURUVILA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.KHALID

                For Respondent  :SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :30/01/2009

 O R D E R
                        PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J.
                        ------------------------
              C.R.P.Nos.1115, 1265 & 1471/2003
                        ------------------------

            Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009

                             ORDER

Notice which was sent to the first respondent in C.R.P

No.1115/2003 was returned with an endorsement ‘refused’. I

am of the view that notice to the first respondent can be declared

as duly served. It is so declared. The parties in C.R.P.

No.1115/2003 are the parties in C.R.P. Nos.1265/2003 and

1471/2003. In those C.R.Ps., service of notice is completed on

all the respondents. In view of the completion of service in C.R.P.

Nos.1265/2003 and 1471/2003, which raises identical grounds

and impugns the common order, it is not necessary to insist on

service of notice on the respondents separately especially since I

find that in those cases also notices to the 1st respondent is

returned as refused.

2. On behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, an

adjournment is sought for. But, I am not inclined to grant

adjournment since I am unable to see any infirmity and much

less jurisdictional infirmity justifying invocation of the revisional

C.R.P.No. 1115/2003 & OTHERS 2

jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. I also notice that

consequent to the dismissal of the interlocutory applications, the

appeal itself was dismissed for default and the order dismissing

the appeal has attained finality. Even if the petitioner is having

any genuine grievance, the petitioner ought to prefer a regular

second appeal against the appellate decree.

The Civil Revision Petitions will stand dismissed. But this

judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner filing regular

second appeal against the appellate decree in A.S. No.42/1991

and raising all available grounds in the memorandum of second

appeal.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

dpk

C.R.P.No. 1115/2003 & OTHERS 3

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J.

————————

C.R.P.Nos.1115, 1265 & 1471/2003

————————

O R D E R

30TH JANUARY 2009