Kerala High Court
RFA/870/2013 of BINU K.S. Vs K.K.SIVAN on 10 April 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A . BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RFA NO. 870 OF 2013 AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2013 IN O.S.NO.97/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA
2025:KER:31377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947
RFA NO. 870 OF 2013
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2013 IN O.S.NO.97/2010 ON THE
FILES OF THE SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
BINU K.S.
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O SUKUMARAN, KARAKUNATHU HOUSE, KOLAPRA KARA, KUDAYATHOOR
VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
K.K.SIVAN
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM KARA, ARAKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN-685585
BY ADV SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:31377
R.F.A. No. 870 of 2013
2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025 This regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree and judgment in O.S. No.97 of 2010 and on the files of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the above suit.
2. In this case, Adv.L.Rajesh Narayan Iyer, who earlier filed vakalath for the appellant already relinquished the vakalath, as submitted on 26.03.2025.
3. No fresh vakalath filed for the appellant so far and the appellant also called absent.
4. Since, the appellant is not intended to proceed with the appeal either in person or by appointing a fresh lawyer, this appeal could not be prosecuted. Hence, the regular first appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. All interlocutory applications pending in this regular first appeal stand dismissed. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN SK JUDGE