High Court of KeralaCRP/500/2009allowed

Sathi Amma v. State Of Kerala

2015-07-31Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/19TH CHAITHRA, 1936 CRP.No. 500 of 2009 (B) ------------------------ AA 36/2006 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA SM 71/2000 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, CHERTHALA REVISION PETITIONER(S)/4TH RESPONDENT/B PARTY NO.4: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SATHI AMMA, W/O.LATE UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, RANDU PURAYIL, VELIYANADU NORTH P.O. ALAPPUZHA.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/A PARTY & RESPONDENTS 1-3/B PARTY NO.1-3 & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. E.V.KUTTAPPAN, GEETHA BHAVAN, KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, VELIYANAD NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

3. KALLIANI AMMA, (DIED), W/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, PUTHIYAPATTIL VELIYANADU NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

4. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, (DIED), PUTHIYAPATTIL, VELIYANADU NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

5. MADHAVIKUTTY AMMA, (DIED), PUTHIYAPATTIL, VELIYANADU NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.V. ELIAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.PRASEETHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-042014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: OKB

K.HARILAL, J.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C.R.P. No.500 of 2009 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dated this the 9th day of April, 2014

O R D E R

Yesterday, when the case was taken up, there was no representation for the revision petitioner in the morning. The learned counsel for the respondents was present from the morning till the rising of the court. So the case was passed over. After lunch, one counsel who represented the concerned counsel for the petitioner made a submission to adjourn the case. But, this Court was not inclined to adjourn the case and again the case was passed over. But, thereafter, there was no representation. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. Today also, the counsel for the respondents is present. So, I find that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter. Hence this CRP is dismissed for default. Sd/- (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.