Loading...
Responsive image

Mini vs Muraleedharan on 27 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mini vs Muraleedharan on 27 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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dismissed as withdrawn consequent to the settlement between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circumstances, dismissed as withdrawn.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/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information