SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
K.K.PRAVENI D/O. KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
E.N.PURUSHOTAMAN S/O. NANU – Respondent
RFA NO. 430 OF 2007



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. ASWIN GOPAKUMAR, SRI. ANWIN GOPAKUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI. A.V.THOMAS (SR.), SRI. JOJO GEORGE, SRI. NIDHI SAM JOHNS, SRI. P.B KRISHNAN (SR.), SMT. GEETHA P.MENON, SRI. P.M NEELAKANDAN, SRI. P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SMT. CHINCY GOPAKUMAR, SRI. B.GOPAKUMAR

Failure of the appellant to provide necessary instructions results in dismissal of appeal.

Headnote:The court analyzed the matter concerning RFA No. 430 of 2007, finding that despite registered notices sent, the appellant had no further instructions. The court determined to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution. The primary issue revolved around the appellant's failure to respond, leading to the ratio decidendi where the court highlighted the appellant's lack of engagement as pivotal to dismissal. Consequently, the final outcome was the dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution.

JUDGMENT

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no instruction from the appellant in spite of registered notice sent and the appeal may be dismissed for non prosecution. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top