IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 RSA.No. 394 of 2008(E) -------------------------- AS.46/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, N. PARAVUR OS.293/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- SASIDHARAN,S/O.KONNAPPAN, KOLAIPADATH, KAITHARAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.SURENDRAN,KOLAPADATH, KAITHARAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE PARAVUR TALUK 2. K.K.SUKUMARAN,KOLAPADATH HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU, KARIVALLIKKUNNU P.O. SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT 3. BABURAJ,S/O. PALLIPARAMBIL KONNAPPAN KAITHARAM MURI, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. 4. REMADEVI,D/O. KONNAPPAN, DO..DO.. 5. NALINI,D/O. KONNNAPPAN, DO..DO.... BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM(CAVEA THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RSA 394/08 1 K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- R.S.A. No 394 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July 2008 JUDGMENT This R.S.A was being posted to 01.07.2008 for admission hearing as last chance. On that day counsel for the appellant was not ready and he wanted the case to be posted to next week. Accordingly the case was adjourned to 17.07.2008 granting one more chance. Again on 17.07.2008 counsel for the appellant prayed for one more chance and the appeal was got adjourned granting one more chance to 28.07.2008. Today, counsel appearing for the appellant is absent and there is no representation even on his behalf. Appellant also is absent. 2. On going through the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved in the case for the R.S.A being admitted. The suit was for declaration and for partition and that was dismissed with costs to third defendant by the trial court and appeal preferred therefrom by the plaintiff was being dismissed with costs throughout. RSA 394/08 2 There is absolutely no merit at all in this R.S.A. In the result, I dismiss this R.S.A in limine refusing admission. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 28/07/2008 en [true copy]