IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 999 of 2009(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASOKAN, S/O.LATE K.P.DAMU
... Respondent
2. UTHAMAN N
3. PURUSHOTHMAN, S/O. LATE K.P.DAMU
4. MOHANAN.V,
5. UDAYAN,
6. SAROJINI .N,
7. VASANTHA,
8. KANCHANA, D/O.LATE K.P.DAMU,
9. UMA.V,
10. VIJAYI.V, D/O.LATE K.P.DAMU,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :05/02/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
L. A. A. No.999 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
The appeal is remaining defective on the
reason that service of notice is not completed on
R4, R5 and R11 who are reported to be out of
India. But we notice that the other claimants/
respondents have been served with notice. We
also notice that all the claimants/ respondents
belong to the same family and were representing
through the same Advocate. According to us,
since the fellow respondents are served, there is
substantial representation for R4, R5 and R11.
The appeal need not be treated as defective.
L. A. A. No.999 of 2009 -2-
Having gone through the impugned
judgment, we find that reliance placed on Ext.A2
judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge was
justified. Ext.A2 was in respect of the same
acquisition. It is brought to our notice that many
of the judgments covered by Ext.A2 common
judgment have not been appealed against. Thus,
to a great extent Ext.A2 has attained finality. We
also notice that the total stakes involved in this
appeal is not much. For all these reasons, we are
not inclined to entertain this appeal any longer.
This appeal is dismissed.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-