Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2022 DAILYLAW 1123 (KER)

DASAN PILLAI v. CHONAPPALLIL ENTERPRISES

Ex.FA/54/2012 · 2026-08-07

S Manu

Public Interest Litigationbody2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944 EX.FA NO. 54 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOS 12/1988 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER/3RD PARTY: 1 DASAN PILLAI (DIED) S/O SREEDHARAN PILLAI, THEKKEKOONAMMAKKIL, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK SPPL.APPEL. NO.2 PYARI DAS, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. LATE DASAN PILLAI, UTHRAM NIVAS, CMC-17, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA SPPL.APPEL. NO.3 ARYA DAS (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, D/O. LATE DASAN PILLAI, UTHRAM NIVAS, CMC-17, CHERTHALA P.O, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. PYARI DAS, AGED 40YEARS, W/O. LATE DASAN PILLAI, UTHRAM NIVAS, CMC-17, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA SPPL.APPEL. NO.4 AYYAPPA DAS (MINOR), AGED 16 YEARS, S/O. LATE DASAN PILLAI, UTHRAM NIVAS, CMC-17, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. PYARI DAS, AGED 40YEARS, W/O. LATE DASAN PILLAI, UTHRAM NIVAS, CMC-17, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA SPPL.APPEL. NO.1 ADITHYA DAS (MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS, D/O. LATE DASAN PILLAI, UTHRAM NIVAS, CMC-17, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. PYARI DAS, AGED 40YEARS, W/O. LATE DASAN PILLAI, UTHRAM NIVAS, CMC-17, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA (ARE IMPLEADED AS THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 29.07.2016 IN IA.NO. 2524/2016 IN EX.FA. NO.54/2012.) BY ADVS. SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN EX.FA NO. 54 OF 2012 2 RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND DEFENDANTS : *1 CHONAPPALLIL ENTERPRISES (DELETED) K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM 688556, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS WHO ARE RESPONDENTS 2-6 *2 C.B. SUDHEESH (DELETED) S/O K.G. BHASKARAN,GOVINDALAYAM, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 3 C.K. SASIDHARAN S/O C.G. KUMARAN, CHONAPPALLIL, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 *4 K.S. SANALKUMAR (DELETED) S/O BALAKRISHNAN CHONAPPALLIL, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, 688556 5 B. MOHANAN S/O C.G. BHASKARAN, GOVINDALAYAM, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 6 M.G. PRASANNAN S/O C.G. GOPALAN, MATTATHIL CHIRAYIL, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 *7 C.G. GOPALAN (DELETED) MATTATHIL CHIRAYIL, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 8 SMT. ABMUJAKSHI BALAKRISHNAN W/O BALAKRISHNAN, CHONAPPALLIL, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 9 SMT. SUSHAMA ASOKRAJ W/O ASOKRAJ, GOVINDALAYAM, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 *10 SMT. SUJATHA (DELETED) W/O CHITHRABHANU, GOVINDALAYAM, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 *11 P.K. CHITHRABHANU (DELETED) S/O KARUNAKARAN, GOVINDALAYAM, K.R. PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 EX.FA NO. 54 OF 2012 3 12 N. BALAKRISHNAN S/O NANOO, CHONAPPALLIL, K.R.PURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 688556 13 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD POOCHAKKAL BRANCH, 688526, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER *14 K.B PRASANNAN (DELETED) CHKRATHIL CHIRAYIL, PALLIPPURAM P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, 688541 15 SULOCHANA VDAYAVIHAR, JOLL JUNCTION, CHEMBU, VAIKOM 686615 16 SMT. SUDHAMONY W/O P.S. ANILKUMAR, AMBALAKATTUCHIRA, VAYALAR P.O, 688536 17 LEELA GOPINATHAN AMBALAKKATTUCHIRA, VAYALAR P.O, CHERTHALA 688536 18 K.R. MANOJ KALATHIL PARAMBU CHIRA, PATTANAKKADU P.O, CHERTHALA 688531 * RESPONDENTS 1,2,4,7,10,11 & 14 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY IN THE APPEAL AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 26.6.13 IN I.A.NO.1611 OF 2013 BY ADVS. T.R.HARIKUMAR -R18 SRI.A.ANTONY -R13 SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY-R13 SRI.VPK.PANICKER -R9 SMT.REMYA KRISHNAN -R9 ARJUN RAGHAVAN -R18 THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: EX.FA NO. 54 OF 2012 4 JUDGMENT The appellant and the counsel remained absent. There was no representation. The appeal is against the order in execution and it is of the year 2012. This would speak volume what is behind it. The counsel for the respondents 9, 13 & 18 are present and ready with the matter. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution with cost of the abovesaid respondents. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV