IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 106 of 2009()
1. MINI, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. SUNIL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :27/05/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.106 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Both counsel submit that all outstanding disputes between
the parties have been settled and an agreement dated
09.04.2010 has been entered into between the parties. Now that
the matter is settled, the appellant does not want to prosecute
this Appeal, it is submitted. It is prayed that this appeal may be
dismissed as withdrawn consequent to the settlement between
the parties.
2. Request is accepted. This Appeal is, in these
circumstances, dismissed as withdrawn.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Mat.Appeal No.106 of 2009 2
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————
Mat.Appeal No.106 of 2009
————————————-
Mat.Appeal No.106 of 2009 3
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009
ORDER
BASANT, J.
I.A.No.3335 of 2009
Dismissed as not pressed.
I.A.No.3334 of 2009
This petition is to declare that service has been duly
effected on the 2nd respondent. Notice issued to him has been
returned unclaimed. The note by the Registry reveals that all
necessary steps are complete and service can be declared.
Petition allowed. Service on the 2nd respondent is declared.
C.M.Appl.No.287 of 2009
This petition is to condone the delay of 232 days in filing an
appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against the order in
O.P.No.667 of 2004 under which the appellant’s prayer to set
aside a release deed was rejected. According to the appellant
the delay occurred on account of reasons beyond her control. It
is prayed that a lenient view may be taken and the delay may be
condoned. Respondents have entered appearance through
counsel. They have filed objections to the application for
condonation of delay. The application is stoutly opposed. It is
Mat.Appeal No.106 of 2009 4
submitted that the appellant was alone with her ailing parents
and was not well are not correct.
2. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we
are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can
be condoned.
3. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
Mat.Appeal No.106 of 2009
Heard. Admitted. Respondents have already entered
appearance. The learned counsel for the appellant stipulates
and specifies that this appeal need be reckoned only as the one
against the decision in O.P.No.667 of 2004, which was disposed
of along with two other connected matters. The appeal in so far
as it relates to the challenge against the order in O.P.667 of
2004 is admitted.
2. Call for records. Put up after records are received for
hearing and disposal.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-
