Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
P.V.PRABHAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
K.S.F.E LIMITED – Respondent
AS NO. 37 OF 2003 | OS NO.65 OF 2001
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
For the Respondents: SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SMT.PRIYA KRISHNAMOORTHY
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
For the Respondents: SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SMT.PRIYA KRISHNAMOORTHY
An appeal may be dismissed for non prosecution when there are no instructions from the appellants to proceed.
Headnote:The court evaluated the proceedings in AS No. 37 of 2003 and noted that counsel for the appellants indicated that there were no instructions to proceed. The essential facts reveal that the appeal could not be pursued due to lack of engagement from the appellants. The court concluded that the appeal was to be dismissed for non prosecution. The main question framed by the court was whether the lack of instructions warranted the dismissal. The court reasoned that without prosecution, the appeal could not be maintained, leading to a dismissal. The final outcome is that the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no instruction from the appellants and the appeal may be dismissed for non prosecution.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/-
