High Court of KeralaCRP/229/2012dismissed as infructuous

Mathew v. Jacob

2015-05-26Honourable Mr. Justice A.Hariprasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2015/5TH JYAISHTA, 1937 CRP.No. 229 of 2012 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.1383/2011 (COMMON ORDER ALONG WITH IA NO.1384/2011) IN OS 340/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 6.1.2012 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN IA NO.1383/2011/PLAINTIFFS IN OS NO.340/2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. MATHEW S/O.SRI.THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS, MANAYATHUMARIYIL HOUSE KOTHAMANGALAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.S.JOSE, S/O.SRI.DEVASSIA, AGED 62 YEARS KADAVUNKAL, PUTHENPURAYIL (ARANJANIYIL) HOUSE KOOVALLOOR KARA, POTHANICADU VILLAGE.

2. MARY, W/O.SRI.MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, MANAYATHUMARIYIL HOUSE KOTHAMANGALAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.S.JOSE, S/O.SRI.DEVASSIA, AGED 62 YEARS KADAVUNKAL, PUTHENPURAYIL (ARANJANIYIL) HOUSE KOOVALLOOR KARA, POTHANICADU VILLAGE.

BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN IA NO.1383/2011/DEFENDANTS IN OS NO.340/2010:

--------------------------------------------------

1. JACOB S/O.SRI.VARGHESE, AGED 56 YEARS, PACHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE NORTH MAZHUVANNUR P.O., IRAPURAM KARA IRAPURAM VILLAGE.

2. VARGHESE, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 64 YEARS, MATHENMOLEL HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM KARA KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.RAMACHANDRAN (THACHETH) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2015, ALONG WITH CRP. 253/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

-------------------------------------- C.R.P. Nos.229 & 253 of 2012 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2015 COMMON ORDER When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the revision petitions have become infructuous as the lower court is now proceeding with the trial of the case. The revision petitions are filed against the orders allowing the respondents' claim to set aside the exparte decree and for condonation of delay. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the exparte decree has been set aside and now trial in the case has advanced to a considerable extent. Reckoning these facts and in the absence of any representation on the petitioners' side, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

cks