2025:KER:25925 R.F.A. No. 206 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RFA NO. 206 OF 2006 (C) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2006 IN I.A.NO.1013 OF 2001 IN O.S. NO.175 OF 2001 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA APPELLANT/FIRST RESPONDENT: JOHN P.THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI.P.T.JOHN, RESIDING AT PALLATHU HOUSE, PIRALASSERI MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT, RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 AND ADDL DEFENDANTS 3 & 4 IN O.S. NO.175 OF 2001: 1 NATARAJAN S/O. NANU, RESIDING AT POURNAMI, ELAVUMTHITTA MURI, MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, NEDIYAKALA. 2 M.G. MOHANAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHA PILLAI, RESIDING AT MOHANA VILASOM, HOUSE, NEAR NEDIYAKALA JUNCTION, MEZHUVELI MURI &, VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA 3 VIMALA DEVI WO.MOHANAN PILLAI DIED AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOHANA VILASOM HOUSE,, NEAR NEDIYAKALA JUNCTION, MEZHUVELI MURI AND, VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 4 LAKSHMI DEVI AGED 20 D/O. M.G. MOHANAN PILLAI, MOHANA VILASOM VEETTIL,, NEAR NEDIYAKALA JUNCTION, MEZHUVELI MURI AND, VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 2025:KER:25925 R.F.A. No. 206 of 2006 2 5 M. RENJITH AGED 19 S/O. M.G. MOHANAN PILLAI, MOHANA VILASOM VEETTIL,, NEAR NEDIYAKALA JUNCTION, MEZHUVELI MURI AND, VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25925 R.F.A. No. 206 of 2006 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 26th day of March, 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 order in I.A. No.1013 of 2001 in O.S. No.175 of 2001 dated 04.02.2006 on the files of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. The appellant herein is the 1st respondent and the respondents are the claimant, respondents 2 and 3 and additional defendants 3 and 4 in the above suit. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is no more and at present, there is no instruction from the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed as abated. 3. Recording the submission, this regular first appeal stands dismissed as abated. All interlocutory orders stand vacated and all interlocutory applications pending in this regular first 2025:KER:25925 R.F.A. No. 206 of 2006 4 appeal stand dismissed. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN SK JUDGE