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

2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30596

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J
KARMALLY – Appellant
Versus
CELEENA & OTHERS – Respondent


J U D G M E N T

The appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2010 in I.A.No.371/2008 in A.S.No.82/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.545/1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit was filed for a decree of permanent injunction. The defendants contested the suit and filed counter claim. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim. The plaintiff preferred A.S.No.82/2001.

2. The learned Judge observed that the appellant was not vigilant in prosecuting the case and that whenever the matter was taken up for hearing he did not show any interest in arguing the case and always sought for adjournment. The learned Judge also referred to the various application filed by the appellant. The learned Judge observed that the applications are not properly prosecuted nor the appellant was interested in co-operating with the court in the hearing and disposal of the appeal. In these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed for default on 8.2.2008.

::2::

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present I.A, 371/2008 for re-admitting the appeal dismissed for default. The learned Judge made the observations which

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top