IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 RSA.No. 336 of 2008(F) -------------------------- (A.S. NO 192 OF 2006 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKUALAM) (O.S. No 1751/97 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM) APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN A.S.192/06 ---------------------------------------------- SUDHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O.SRI.KARUPPAN, PERUMUTTATHU VEETTIL, CHALIKKAVATTOM DESOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT IN A.S.192/06 ----------------------------------------------- SRI.GOVINDAN, S/O.ITTIYATHI, AGED 72, CHITTEPPADATHU VEETTIL, CHALIKKAVATTOM DESOM, EDAPPALLY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- R.S.A. NO 336 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd June 2008 JUDGMENT The defendant whose contentions were upheld concurrently by both the trial court and the first appellate court is the appellant. The respondent filed O.S No 1751 of 1997 against the appellant for an injunction restraining him from entering into the property scheduled in the suit. That suit was jointly tried with O.S No 1964 of 1997 and was dismissed by the trial court. A.S. No 192 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff in that suit against the present appellant and that also was dismissed. It is against the concurrent dismissal of the suit that the successful defendant has filed this Second Appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Second Appeal is filed as it was disposed of by a common judgment by the trial court along with O.S No 1964 of 1997 and by the first appellate court along with A.S. No 193 of 2006 and that an appeal filed by him as R.S.A No 317 of 2008 against that judgment also is pending. 3. Confronted with the question as to whether a successful party is to prefer an appeal the only reply of the counsel is that it is because the suit was jointly tried with another suit wherein the decision is RSA 336/08 2 adverse to the appellant but against that R.S.A 317 of 2008 is already pending. There is absolutely no necessity for the appellant to file appeal also against the judgment in A.S No 192 of 2006 which was dismissed confirming the correctness of the dismissal of O.S No 1751 of 1997 wherein he was the defendant. This R.S.A is hence disposed of as being unnecessary. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 02/06/2008 en [true copy]