Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
M/S.TYFORD ESTATE – Appellant
Versus
P.P.THAMPI – Respondent
RFA NO. 517 OF 2006
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.), SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
For the Respondents: R BY SHRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM, R BY SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.), SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
For the Respondents: R BY SHRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM, R BY SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR
Non-representation of the appellant in court leads to dismissal for non-prosecution.
Headnote:In the matter of RFA NO. 517 OF 2006, the court analyzed the failure of the appellant to represent its case, despite repeated court directions, leading to a dismissal for non-prosecution. The main issue framed by the court was the lack of representation by the appellant, which resulted in an outright dismissal for non-prosecution. The court concluded that due process was not followed, and hence the appeal was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to appear results in dismissal for non-prosecution. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's ruling on the appeal dismissal. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
There is no representation for the appellant today. There was no representation for the appellant on 03.03.2026 as well.
2. Despite repeated directions from this Court, no steps have been taken.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
