High Court Kerala High Court

Raman vs Vadakke Purakkal Notti on 9 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Raman vs Vadakke Purakkal Notti on 9 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

SA.No. 131 of 2003()


1. RAMAN, VADAKKEPURAKKAL, THRIKULAM
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MANGELI, VADAKKEPURACKAL, THRIKULAM

                        Vs



1. VADAKKE PURAKKAL NOTTI, D/O.CHACHAN.
                       ...       Respondent

2. UNNIEECHI.

3. VADAKKEPURAKKAL UNNIAMAN'S CHILDREN

4. KUMARAN

5. VELAYUDHAN.

6. KARTHIYAYANI.

7. DEVAKI.

8. PARVATHI,

9. ARAMUGHAN,

10. VALLI, W/O.UNNIAMAN,

11. VADAKKE PURAKKAL KORU, S/O.RAMAN,

12. ARAMUGHAN, S/O.CHANDU,

13. KUMARAN,

14. KALI,

15. KALLIANI,

16. UNNIPPERI,

17. THANKA,

18. VADAKKE PURAKKAL SANKARAN'S CHILDREN

19. JANU,

20. THANKA,

21. SUBRAMANIAN,

22. GOPI (ALL ARE RESIDING AT TRIKKULAM

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.RATHISH VIJAYENDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :09/02/2009

 O R D E R
                   K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
               ------------------------------------------------
                     C. M. P. No.358 of 2003 and
                        S. A. No.131 of 2003
               ------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

C. M.P. No. No.358 of 2003

This is an application seeking for

condonation of delay of 2433 days in filing

the Second Appeal. Respondents 3 to 9 and 12

to 21 are served and they have entered

appearance also. All the same, respondents 1,

2, 10, 11 and 22 are reported dead as early as

on 19/03/04. Despite several opportunities

afforded, steps are not taken to implead the

L.Rs of respondents 1, 2, 10, 11 and 22. In

the circumstances, there is no purpose to be

served by retaining this C.M.P on file seeking

for condonation of delay of as much as 2433

days in filing this Second Appeal.

In the result, I dismiss this C.M.P.

S. A. No.131 of 2003 -2-

S.A. No.131/2003

C.M.P.No.358/03 seeking for condonation

of delay of as much as 2433 days in filing the

Second Appeal is dismissed today. The Second

Appeal is hence, hopelessly barred by

limitation.

In the result, I dismiss this Second

Appeal.

K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-