Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Saleena Girija vs Pakiya Nathan Rajappan Nadar on 9 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA.No. 872 of 2005()


1. SALEENA GIRIJA, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SALEENA DALLY  DO.  DO.
3. JNANA DASAN SURESH,  DO.  DO.
4. JNANADASAN BIJU   DO.  DO.

                        Vs



1. PAKIYA NATHAN RAJAPPAN NADAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAJAPPAN NADAR JARARD  OF  DO.  DO.

3. GRASI SELINA, VAZHATHOPPU

4. SALEENA SOOSAMMA VAZHATHOPU

5. SELINA VASANTHA OF  DO.  DO.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :09/07/2008

 O R D E R
               K.P. Balachandran, J.
            ---------------------------
             C.M.Appl.No.565 of 2005 &
               R.S.A.No.872 of 2005
            ---------------------------

                     JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is posted before me

in the defect list as no steps are taken for

service being completed in C.M.Appl.No.565/05,

despite returning of notices issued to respondents

1 and 2 unserved with the report that they have

expired. This Court, vide order dated 2.4.2008,

granted two weeks time to the appellants to cure

the defects. However, even as on today, no steps

are taken to implead the legal representatives of

deceased respondents 1 and 2.

2. C.M.Appl.No.565/05 is an application seeking

for condonation of delay of 2069 days in filing the

appeal. On going through the averments in the

affidavit filed by the first appellant in support

of the C.M. application, I am not satisfied that

grounds or just and sufficient cause exist to

condone the delay of as much as 2069 days in filing

RSA 872/05 2

the appeal. No purpose also would be served even in

the event of the legal representatives of deceased

respondents 1 and 2 also being impleaded. Hence,

there is no necessity to grant any further time to

cure the defects.

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

Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal also stands

dismissed.

9th July, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.170 seconds.