High Court Kerala High Court

M.S.Martin vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.S.Martin vs State Of Kerala on 3 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17336 of 2010(N)


1. M.S.MARTIN, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.S.ANTONY, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN,
3. M.S.THOMAS, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN,
4. M.S.JEROME, S/O.M.K.SEBASTIAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE,

5. MR.P.V.JOSE, PULLUKKARAN HOUSE,

6. MR.V.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 28/1099,

7. MR.M.K.SUKUMARA PILLAI, AVITTAM,

8. MRS.S.OMANA AMMA, AVITTAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :03/12/2010

 O R D E R
                    C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
               ---------------------------------------
                 W.P(C) No.17336 of 2010-N
               ----------------------------------------
        Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8

submits that the interim stay granted by this Court was

already vacated, as per the order dtd.20.8.2010. It is further

stated that the dispute raised by the petitioners with

respect to maintainability of the execution petition before

the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was already

disposed of finding that the petitioners are liable to pay the

amount as ordered by that Forum. Under such

circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous, is

the submission.

2. On 1.12.2010, when the matter was taken up

there was no representation for the petitioners and hence it

was adjourned to 2.12.2010. On 2.12.2010 the counsel

representing the petitioners had sought time to ascertain as

to whether the matter has become infructuous. Today when

W.P(C) No.17336 of 2010-N 2

the matter was taken up again there was no representation

for the petitioners.

3. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is

closed as infructuous, accepting the submission made by

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge
ab