Muhammed Haneefa Shahul Hameed v. Syamala Amma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937 FAO.No. 263 of 2012 ----------------------------- AS 289/2006 OF III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM, DATED 12-04-2011 IA.NO.1480/1996 IN OS 677/1982 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM, DATED 13-10-2004 --------------------------- APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

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

1. MUHAMMED HANEEFA SHAHUL HAMEED, VAYAKONATH MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR THIRUMALA POST OFFICE, THIRMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695006.

2. MOHAMMED PATHUMMAL JAMEELA BEEVI, VAYAKONATH MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR THIRUMALA POST OFFICE, THIRMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695006.

BY ADV. SRI.T.I.UNNIRAJA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

----------------------------------------------------------------- SYAMALA AMMA, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA, . KULATHINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, THIRUMALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695006. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

----------------------------------- F.A.O.No. 263 of 2012 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June , 2015

JUDGMENT

This appeal was preferred with an application to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. Though this Court ordered notice on the delay petition on 11.6.2014, the appellants have not taken steps to serve notice on the respondent on the delay petition. Consequently, on 14.1.2015 when the matter came up for orders, this Court granted a further time of one month to the appellants to cure the said defect. Even thereafter, steps have not been taken by the appellants to cure the defect.

In the said circumstance, the Appeal is dismissed for default.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

smm