Appeals lacking substantial questions of law against lower court rulings may be dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. Before this Court proceeds further on the merits of the case, it is admitted that a suit and a counterclaim were tried together and by common judgment dated 25.2.2003, the suit and the counterclaim were dismissed by the I Additional Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara. As against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had preferred AS No.206/2003 and by judgment dated 8.10.2009, the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara allowed the appeal and granted the relief and decreed the suit. At that point of time, the defendants did not file any appeal against the dismissal of the counterclaim. After the appeal at the instance of the plaintiff was allowed, the appellants herein (defendants) filed appeal before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara as AS No.44/2010 with an application to condone the delay. The Sub Court found that inasmuch as the appeal was preferred against the counterclaim after the judgment and decree in AS No.206/2003, the filing of the present appeal is only to harass the plaintiff and thus refused to condone the delay and thus, the present second appeal has arisen.

As against the judgment and decree in AS No.206/2003, the appellants herein had preferred RSA No.557/2010 and this Court had by judgment dated 25.5.2015 dismissed the said appeal. In the light of the dismissal of the aforesaid second appeal, no purpose would be served even if this Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. Therefore, finding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, this appeal fails, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-