IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 RSA.No. 1229 of 2005 ------------------------ AS.21/2003 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY OS.825/1998 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR (IA 868 2001) .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/Defendant No.2 ---------------------------------------------- SANKARAN PALLIYATH SUMANGALA, D/O.AMMU AMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, ERAYI HOUSE, BEHIND STATE BANK OF INDIA, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: RES[PMDEMTS/Plaintiff and Defendant 1 & Legal heirs of third defendant ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANKARAN PALLIYATH PAVITHRA SAGAR, S/O.AMMU AMMA, AGED 66 YEARS, RETIRED ENGINEER, `SANADU' HOUSE, KANNUR II AMSOM, TEMPLE WARD, KANNUR. 2. SANKARAN PALLIYATH RATNAKARAN, S/O.AMMU AMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, `MANGALA' HOUSE, NEAR AMBILI TALKIES, KANNUR. 3. KALATHIL NELLIKKA CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 72 YEARS, PENSIONER. 4. KALATHIL PALLIYATH SUDHEER, S/O.SANKARAN PALLIYATH VILASINI, AGED 40 YEARS, EMPLOYED AT WESTERN INDIA PLYWOODS, (RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 4 ARE RESIDING AT PALLIYATH HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-4). BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------- C.M. Application No 781 of 2005 and R.S.A. No 1229 of 2005 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th July 2008 JUDGMENT Notice on C.M. Application No 781 of 2005 was ordered on 13.12.2005. Notice issued to first respondent was returned with the report “expired” and notice issued to respondents 3 and 4 were returned with the report “not known”. Service was effected only on the second respondent. Thereafter no step was taken by the appellant to implead L.Rs of first respondent or to issue notice to respondents 3 and 4 in their correct address. Though defect was notified nobody turned up and it was therefore that the case is posted at bench in the defect list. There is no representation for the appellant who is the petitioner in C.M. Application No 781 of 2005. 2. C.M. Application No 781 of 2005 is filed seeking for condonation of delay of as much as 101 days in filing the R.S.A. As there is no representation at all for the appellant, I am not of the view that any further opportunity has to be afforded to the appellant to take steps for notice being repeated to respondents 3 and 4 and to take steps to implead L.Rs of first respondent. In the result, I dismiss C.M. RSA 1229/05 2 Application No 781 of 2005 as also the R.S.A for default. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 16/07/2008 en [true copy]